Why is software so poor? Is open source just as bad?

CIO.com's Ken Harris unleashes a torrent of abuse on the state of software quality in a recent article. While he doesn't bring it up, the problem is compounded by software licenses that disclaim all responsibility for the problems caused by

We call them "bugs" as if somehow they are separate, evil creatures. But they're not. They are problems with the intrinsic quality of our product and the way it is brought to market. With automobiles, we learned that it's not always the driver, or how they drive. Sometimes it's the vehicle, and how it is built. At what point do we challenge software's architecture and design and the quality control process that produces it?

Harris suggests open source as a possible check on shoddy software quality. This may be overly optimistic. Open source by itself does not affect software quality. Knowing that one's code is open for all to see may prevent a developer from taking shortcuts that a proprietary license would hide, and a strong community might root out problems, but neither is a guarantee.

No, I think there is something fundamentally different about software. It is still "magic" in some ways. Just as a mobile phone's convenience trumps the need for a perfect (or even passable) signal, I suspect that we put up with a lot from software because it's still relatively new and drives a tremendous amount of value, even in its buggy state.

Eventually we'll expect more, and we'll get it. For now, I think we're still somewhat giddy by just how much even the worst software can do.

[royrusso]

As long as CIO's and VCs equate software development skill level to that of manufacturing, this problem will continue. Searching the globe for the cheapest source of software development labor, will get you exactly what you pay for. I find it funny that these guys flock to cheap software development for their companies, but would never step foot in WalMart for even a loaf of bread. ;-)

[Myztry]

Why is software poor? Simple. Most is targetted for a poorly written Operating System. Everyone knows which one it is. Unfortunately this flows through to everything due to dominance and the need for a degree of compatability.
Back before things went awry, dozens of 32 bit GUI application could run comfortably at once on 512 Meg of RAM and a 7Mhz processor. At least it could under the AmigaOS.
It's amazing the difference a well written Operating System could make to the entire software eco-system. That was back in the mid to late 80's.
Now we just have proof that fiscal, marketting and license leveraging DOES NOT produce "Best Of Breed". Merely the most common lowest denominator.

[The_Decider]

Software should be help to the same standards as computer hardware, cars, and even toasters.

Mission and life critical software should be treated like buildings and bridges and those who write such software should be licensed and have to follow guidelines.

The software industry has evaded responsibility for too long.

Software is not magic, and it is not that much younger than aircraft and automobiles.

[t8]

Software development is giving way to web development. Software just isn't as wildly popular and successful as some web sites such as Facebook. When was the last time you saw new software that was valued at over 1 billion dollars? Yet on the Web, there are services and sites that are worth more and they crop up all the time.

[The_Decider]

Web sites are software. Other than utilizing HTTP and generally having a simpler UI there is no real difference between a web app and a desktop app.

You are making a meaningless distinction.

[jrepenning]

We've been giddy so long as we could spend our Moore's-law winnings on clock speed. Now that that's pooping out, and we're discovering that most software is danged HARD to parallelize at all, let alone robustly, will there be a wave of hard-headed realism? Or just a grudging acceptance of even worse quality?