IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New stating the obvious: buggy software costs businesses $$$$$
[link|http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-940924.html|[link|http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-940924.html|http://zdnet.com.co...-940924.html]]

Study: Software bugs cost U.S. billions

Reuters
July 1, 2002, 11:40 AM PT

NEW YORK--Software bugs are not just annoying or inconvenient. They're expensive.

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the bugs and glitches cost the U.S. economy about $59.5 billion a year.

"The impact of software errors is enormous because virtually every business in the United States now depends on software for the development, production, distribution, and after-sales support of products and services," NIST Director Arden Bement said in a statement on Friday.

Software users contribute about half the problem, while developers and vendors are to blame for the rest, the study said. The study also found that better testing could expose the bugs and remove bugs at the early development stage could reduce about $22.2 billion of the cost.

"Currently, over half of all errors are not found until 'downstream' in the development process or during post-sale software use," the study said.

The study, conducted by the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina and the software industry, was conducted to identify and assess technical needs to improve software-testing capabilities.

Bugs rife in software
Software is error-ridden, in part because of the complexity inherent in millions of lines of code. About 80 percent of the cost of developing software programs goes to identifying and correcting defects. Yet, few products of any type other than software are shipped with such high levels of errors, the study found.

Other factors contributing the problem include marketing strategies, limited liability by software vendors and decreasing returns on testing and debugging, according to the study.

In January, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report urging lawmakers to consider adopting legislation that would hold software vendors liable for security breaches.

If software makers were held liable, the cost to consumers would rise dramatically, said Marc E. Brown, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery.

However, Europe already has begun addressing the issue.

A Dutch judge in September convicted Exact Holding of malpractice for selling buggy software, rejecting the argument that early versions of software are traditionally unstable.

lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
New Now, if we could hold M$ accountable....
... they'd be out of business in short order.


"And there was much rejoicing...."
New Huh?
"
In January, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report urging lawmakers to consider adopting legislation that would hold software vendors liable for security breaches.

If software makers were held liable, the cost to consumers would rise dramatically, said Marc E. Brown, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery.
"

How so? Higher cost to purchase (lease)? But wouldn't that be offset in lower costs due to getting the bugs out? Assuming the vendors start delivering less buggy software in self defense.
"We are patriotic citizens too. Patriotism means 'love of country',
caring about its people, its ecosystem, and others around us. Not giving
blind loyalty and a blank check to George W. Bush. We are patriotic enough
to care about the long term effects instead of just the short term gain.

Therefore it is our patriotic duty to guard our country and our constitution
against people and forces hiding behind the flag."

-Jello Biafra
New Much initial higher cost
How so? Higher cost to purchase (lease)? But wouldn't that be offset in lower costs due to getting the bugs out? Assuming the vendors start delivering less buggy software in self defense.

Problem is, it requires retraining 95% of the software workforce - and what's worse, developing entirely new methods of writing software because even "best practices" today seem to produce 10% buggy code right from the start. (Perhaps newer techniquest like Extreme Programming may change that, but I still doubt it reduces the bug-rate to a truly acceptable level.)
New how much?
The premise can't be argued with but the numbers can always be massaged

remember the TCO 'statistics' we were bombarded with. If you believed some of them the TCO was greater than revenue at my place

A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
New Do I see an easy solution?
Via new legislation (prompted by Angry expensive-Suited Mobs-with-Torches in DC, natch; not yer ordinary pissed-off Citizens, natch):

An independent clearing house is created. (Run by the Dutch, who appear to be taking the lead over our self-protecting Corporate System. Hey, they also beat us out on intelligent Drug management without filling the lowlands with new prisons - either.)

Each Week there is published (SomeWhere) a list of the previous week's reported exploits. Listed shall be:

Manufacturer of the software (including certain details of whether an ap, an OS or Other)

Running stats of Each-type exploit is appended each new report.

Use-in-the-Field data is shown - with brief resume of Mfg. of each OS, and a recap of the "repetitive factors" already ascertained for Mfg. overall, and for 'major' aps as have experienced 'insecurity in the past'.

"Cost in $$ per exploit" suggested.

OK, I've probably missed a couple featurez, but:

I think this just might do it, even when dumbed-down so that a Suit might sorta get: where the &^$&($ --> $$ are going. $$ they Do Get eventually; after all, it IS their God.



Ashton Final Solutions LLC

     stating the obvious: buggy software costs businesses $$$$$ - (lincoln) - (5)
         Now, if we could hold M$ accountable.... - (n3jja)
         Huh? - (Silverlock) - (1)
             Much initial higher cost - (wharris2)
         how much? - (andread)
         Do I see an easy solution? - (Ashton)

I don't think mammals are meant to eat reptiles.
61 ms