Using your analogy of Cars - no one forces you to upgrade to the latest, it's a decision the consumer makes based on availability of parts, comfort and safety. There are collectors who are happy to accept the deficiencies and continue to drive old cars, despite the difference in driving safety - brakes, crumple zones and airbags.

In the same way - no one should force you to stop using a software package with an arbitrary date they set. Not only is the persistent upgrade cycle one of the things we critisize in Microsoft - but what about Mom and Pop users who dont have an internet connection (or use a modem for that matter). This introduces a whole new set of logistics into using computers.

I think the sensible solution is to make software better in the first place. Making it modular so that parts of it can be upgraded without the whole will help here, as will the maturing of software development - which is not yet up with that of cars. Think I'm wrong, read the Ford rebuttal on if Microsoft made cars.

The next thing is to ensure that it is tested adequately and not released with known bugs. Perhaps holding the vendor monetarily responsible for damage caused by flaws might help. Imagine buying a car and having to agree to an End User licencing agreement. We do not warrant this car for fitness of purpose, it is yours as is, you accept any manufacturing flaws etc etc.

I subscribe to the Darwinian theory of software - that the fittest survives, and the rest goes away. Having someone tell me when my software stops working would really piss me off.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/72/11648#11648