licensing software engineers? i don't like the sound of this...

[Q Classic]

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/031209/290/egmuy.html

and

http://www.sdtimes.com/news/093/story1.htm

the rationale:

“We license civil engineers to have confidence their bridges will support a certain amount of weight over a certain period of time. But is it bomb-proof? We need to define software in those terms,” Moritz explained. “Maybe the bridge isn’t bomb-proof but is earthquake-proof, so that it maintains its integrity under stress. We need to define software in those terms.”

now, there are valid points...

While he acknowledged that IT budgets vary widely even within vertical markets, a programmer at a small community credit union, for instance, should be held to the same standard as one working for Bank of America. “If that credit union is connected to the ATM backbone, what kind of damage can be caused” by software that was open to vulnerabilities, Moritz wondered.

i don't like the idea. i don't think it'll help matters much at all. microsoft hires licensed programmers and software engineers. the consumer has to pay through the nose, more than already; it won't help microsoft's security too much, being the gigantic target it is... idiot users will still download stupid spywares, or unwittingly turn their computers into spam redistributors...

[Kuciwalker]

huh?

[Urban Ranger]

Re: licensing software engineers? i don't like the sound of this...

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i don't like the idea. i don't think it'll help matters much at all. microsoft hires licensed programmers and software engineers.

You surely mean "certified." I cannot recall any "licensing" of programmers a la doctors and engineers. But most of these certificates are unreliable and some of them are jokes.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the consumer has to pay through the nose, more than already

That has nothing to do with costs but with MS being a monopoly.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it won't help microsoft's security too much, being the gigantic target it is... idiot users will still download stupid spywares, or unwittingly turn their computers into spam redistributors...

It's all a matter of design. If you design programs to be small, have clearly defined tasks, and keep everything tight, you can have secure software. Think DES.

[notyoueither]

Yeah right, and require only licensed engineers to contribute to *nix?

Can you say open sourse = dead?

[Neutrino]

Licenses can help ensure the software engineers have a proper grasp of good software development processes which reduce the likelihood of late, costly, buggy software.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: licensing software engineers? i don't like the sound of this...

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You surely mean "certified." I cannot recall any "licensing" of programmers a la doctors and engineers. But most of these certificates are unreliable and some of them are jokes.

Most of MS's programmers are university graduates, as far as I know. At least, I think that's why they recruit all the major CompSci campuses in NA.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yeah right, and require only licensed engineers to contribute to *nix?

Can you say open sourse = dead?

I say most of the contributors to *nix can pass the exams without breaking out much sweat. It's a matter of following sound and robust protocols and paradigms.

The fundamental design of Windows and other MS software is insecure.

[notyoueither]

The day that licensed, regulated, engineers are the only ones who can release code is the day that open source is deader than that parrot in the Monty Python skit.

MS won't mind at all, their programmers already earn engineer's saleries. In fact, I would think MS would gain from tightening up the rules for entry.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: licensing software engineers? i don't like the sound of this...

Originally posted by notyoueither
Most of MS's programmers are university graduates, as far as I know.

It doesn't matter, it's the way MS design and develop programs. If software engineers need license to do certain things and need to be personally responsible for them, like civil and structural engineers do now, they probably will have second thoughts and refuse to put their names down to authorise development efforts they consider insecure.

[notyoueither]

As far as I've heard, nobody is secure. Everyone has holes. It is just a matter of how big a bulls-eye you are wearing and how many people are trying to hack you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The day that licensed, regulated, engineers are the only ones who can release code is the day that open source is deader than that parrot in the Monty Python skit.

No, the current engineering system does not work that way, which is the closest parallel to programming.

[notyoueither]

Oh really, how many community efforts do you see having bridges built to their specifications?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As far as I've heard, nobody is secure. Everyone has holes. It is just a matter of how big a bulls-eye you are wearing and how many people are trying to hack you.

That's not true (okay, I am limiting the discussion to remote, outside intruders vs a networked computer). There are formal methods to prevent security holes. Even if you don't use formal methods, there are existing methodologies to prevent security flaws.

Of course, it's a different story when general computer/network security is concerned.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh really, how many community efforts do you see having bridges built to their specifications?

How many community of engineers are there to build bridges in their spare time?

[notyoueither]

And the point of the whole issue is network security, isn't it?

/me points at the opening post