The reference to Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" is a good one -- both ways.
Giving them both their due, neither cars nor software are perfect. Both could stand improvement. I don't see anything in this world that couldn't use a little improvement.
On the other hand, "Unsave at Any Speed" unfairly characterized Chevrolette's Corvair as poorly designed when the real problem was that many Corvair owners took no responsibility for routine maintenance. The Corvair has been called the poor man's Porche because it was a well balanced car that would perform well if its tires were properly inflated.
In the same way, much of today's software is amazingly good, especially considering the cost to acquire FLOSS. Most of the software used by people who use /. can be updated at regular intervals (like keeping the tires inflated), and most of us take advantage of those updates to keep our systems clean.
Joe Sixpack wants to surf his p0rn; he doesn't want to "waste time" with those pesky software updates. If his tires run flat he'll just buy new ones. Now let him go where he wants to go!
When was the last time we held car manufacturers liable for damage caused by potholes? Do we expect car manufacturers to keep us safe from the consequences of driving over nails or off a clif?
Yes, everything could stand some improvement, especially those silly shrink-wrap or click-wrap license agreements. I still don't see how the software that is not guaranteed to do anything useful has to be treated like the crown jewels. But that does not seem to be the focus of "Geekonomics." Let's work on reducing the targets for malware while we thank those who provide the software that works as well as it does.
