Support versus Bug Fixes (Was: Can't backup to floppy)

[Dimitri Rotow]

In article <8229 at alice.UUCP>, debra at alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes:
> 
> every license should cover free bug-fixes, and that this has nothing to do
> with support!

Paul - I agree with you that bug fixes are a different topic than support
required to teach people how to read manuals, etc., but I strongly disagree
that *everybody* should be forced to buy guaranteed free bug fixes for life.

I don't think you meant to give the impression of limitless, infinite bug fix
support in all cases, but by looking at the end points of your argument we 
can see flaws which are harder to see looking at the reasonable middle.

Sure, SUN offers a software warranty on some of their products: what do those
products cost?  We offer a software warranty on some of our software products
too ... We just completed a software job on a consulting contract where we
warranted the software just like you proposed above (well, we did impose a 
one year limit) and we charged well over $50,000 for the item.

Given the nature of UNIX, the one thing you know for sure is that bugs will
exist in the code, and that bugs will crawl out into the light of day over
a period of extended use.   What's the more reasonable way of dealing with
those bugs...

a) Charge everybody hard cash *up-front* enough money to guarantee free
   bug fixes forever or for a period of time?  --- You've got to collect
   enough to cover a series of unknown risks, so good-bye sub-$1000 UNIX!

b) Put out code that's been reasonably tested to minimize bugs and then offer
   reasonably priced updates to deal with bugs that have been discovered?   
   --- Most people want to switch to future releases anyway (to take advantage
   new features like compaq tape drivers, y'know! :)  ), and some people 
   are not bothered by many bugs.  That way, you don't have to pay for
   bug fix support that you don't need.

I respect your desire to reach the quid pro quo that you want, but what's
so wrong about other people cutting the deals that they desire?  The vast
majority of public and private software deals I have seen involve the usual
"bug fixes are done through extra cost updates" deal.  From the people I've
talked to here in the valley, the disclaimer of warranty everyone applies
is motivated by the general failure of our legal system to evolve a 
reasonable way to deal with partial and general releases in the context
of the peculiar technical indeterminacies (is that a real word?) of the
software business.

Note that the software business *is* peculiarly indeterminate; in our hardware
line, we often provide total, complete, even *lifetime* warranties with no
funny strings attached.  That's because hardware has fewer degrees of freedom
than software.  Sure, people can get together and force the legislature to 
pass laws that require limitless warranties on software, but that doesn't 
change the fundamental technical nature of the problem anymore than the 
legislature can get together and pass a law to create a program that 
can predict whether or not a given program contains an infinite loop (or,
for that matter, make "pi" equal to 3.0).

- Dimitri Rotow