[LINK] What's a reasonable level of code-checking?

[Richard Chirgwin]

>> Why so? It is very impractical for every single user of every single
>> piece of FOSS to download the source, examine it for bugs, test it
>>     
>
> because you can't avoid all personal responsibility for your actions by
> saying "i couldn't be bothered".
>
> "i couldn't be bothered checking if the gun was loaded before i pointed
> it at your head and fired". 
>
> "i was too busy to check the speedometer and keep below the limit"
>
> "i didn't care to read the dosage instructions for paracetamol"
>  
> excuses like that don't work, do they?
>   
Craig,

There is an important point, however, given that there is a significant 
group of advocates who evangelise the adoption of free software among 
non-expert users.

The reason it is so hard to establish a reasonable level of "product 
trust" between end user and any software author is that software writing 
all-to-frequently refuses to assume the burdens of engineering.

For example: "I was too busy to check the speedometer" is, as you say, a 
stupid excuse. However, "I did not check the elevator motor bolts before 
riding to the 14th floor" is reasonable for everybody. Where is the line 
between what I should check (the speedometer) and what I should 
reasonably expect someone else to check (the elevator motor bolts)? - 
The line is drawn by expertise and responsibility. I cannot be asked to 
take responsibility for the elevator because I don't have the expertise; 
I expect that the relevant building authorities will set standards, and 
that engineers will keep to those standards.

Software needs to adopt the disciplines of engineering, and frankly the 
exclusionist expert mentality could just as well be dropped down an 
abandoned mineshaft and nobody would notice...

RC