The best of 'Reader Comments': The big merger, code blame and paying for content

The past two weeks have seen outspoken reactions to a number of stories and here we look at three of them: the HP-Compaq merger (http://www.silicon.com/a47094 ), penalties for poor coding (http://www.silicon.com/a46871 ), and charging for online content (http://www.silicon.com/a46609 )...

Execution is key
From: Wayne Horton

The success of the merger will depend on the combined companies' execution of their newly defined strategies. Hopefully, those at the top at both HP and Compaq are carefully planning this critical endeavour. I wish them success.

How safe is your job?
From: Luciana Montuanelli

The point is that once again a reduction is expected. As always what we can expect is a new bunch of people having to search for new jobs at a very delicate moment of the economy. Let's try to be positive for the next quarter and see what is going to happen.

Did someone say commoditisation? (Not easy to do, we know.)
From: Clive Higgins

I note the inevitable scare mongering by people who seem to have an axe to grind over the merger of Compaq & HP. I have been a creator of IT services since 1976. The merging of two manufacturers, although assemblers would be a more accurate term, makes not a jot of difference to the on-going supportability of either companies' products. The problems in the industry that have caused the merger are all to do with the hardware becoming virtually identical commodities.

Our story about criminal liability for sub-standard code produced dozens of replies...

What's the background to mistakes?
From Jeff Powell

If it could be proved that the code was produced with malice or forethought to cause harm to human life then there would be very strong grounds for criminal prosecution. But every case is different and it would be very wrong to lock people away without knowing the constraints they were working with at the time (eg the millennium bug).

Developers should not be blamed
From: Joanne Mercer

In my experience it is lack of software testing and quality assurance that leads to major software bugs not being discovered. If anybody should be held responsible it is the management that skimp on QA resource - testing and QA are always the first thing to be cut when a deadline is going to be missed on any project (in my experience).

Perhaps the government should be considering the consumer protection laws - why should an expensive piece of software be able to be sold with an 'acceptable' amount of faults/bugs/malfunctions? You would take a kettle back to the store of purchase if it did not boil water - why should software firms be excused from what all other companies have to deliver - quality assured, safe products?

Open invitation to Bill and co
From: Andrew Allen

So, maybe now we can invite Billy Gates and all his 'mates' for a decade long stay at one of Her Majesty`s fine and cramped institutions and put off his grand plans for a world dominated by bewildered users who wonder just what level of 'support' (ahem....) they will be paying all of their disposable income for... I wonder if the Redmond Gang could make it to 'Grand-Daddy' status inside the box...

Blame the higher-ups
From: Paul Horgan

No! Don't blame the authors! The acceptors and implementers should have responsibility. The precedent is the case of the London Ambulance Service who cut over to a computerised system running under Visual Basic 1.0 without even the most routine of introduction processes. One girl died when an ambulance was too late to save her as a result. You can't blame the programmer exclusively. They are just a high-level element in the business process.

It's about money, not quality...
From: Michael Hermiston

Having worked at a number of software houses, there is no way that the CSSA's comment is justifiable that 'most' software houses follow stringent quality control standards. Most software houses follow stringent financial budgets and as long as they can throw something out the door that 'works' as long as the wind is blowing in a SE direction at 3 knots, they will - it means they get paid!

I know of production systems with virtually no documentation. A major investment bank in the City where I worked had no documentation post-1994 for any of its systems.

I continually try and tell my managers if you want safe software (pertinent as I now work in the nuclear industry) you need time and money. There are no shortcuts to reliability. However, as long as consumers continue to accept substandard releases as production quality there is little hope of current practices and the consequent failure of systems being changed.

And finally this, following our series of articles about charging for content...

Caveat emptor
From: Chris Wright

Most sane people will eventually pay for brands, content and services they enjoy and respect. The online world is already moving the same way as the offline world in this respect - divided into sales collateral (free of charge)and useful content, tools and services (worth paying for). There`s no point looking back wistfully...

Banner ads, duh?
From: Steve Brown

Do you really think there is any money left in banner ads? Do you think your potential click is going to pay for that service?

It doesn't. And it won't. There is ONLY one way that this content can stay on the net and that is if its providers start charging for it. And about time too really.

As someone else suggested, the sales collateral will remain free, just like the brochures and leaflets in your car showroom. But the content, the 'Haynes Manual' on how to sort your own car out when it goes wrong, will cost.