Tim wrote:
You'd think (you'd wish) they'd get snared by the original release not being "fit for purpose" being against several laws that obligated them to providing something that was, and didn't let them weasel out after some arbitrary time limit.
We have such laws about real products. You buy a hammer, it has to do what a hammer is supposed to do, and last for a reasonable time for that product at its price.
Similarly, if you buy a database, you ought to be able to expect to do what a database is supposed to do, and work according to its instructions...
But if you actually try to pin a supplier down to the laws regarding faulty products, even when it's demonstrably failing right there in front of you, them, and witnesses, some companies fight tooth and nail and blatantly break the law to escape their responsibilities.
Unfortunately everyone's got used to bad software, and computer hardware, and nobody throws it back at their retailer for a refund. If everyone returned dud computing products the same way that they wouldn't accept a dishwasher that didn't work, they'd actually have to release properly working products to stay in business.
The difficulty comes in defining "what {it} is supposed to do". If I buy an IC measuring less than 0.2 cm2, I get (or can get) hundreds of pages of documentation on what it does and does not do, exactly how it does those things, and test results. If I buy a piece of software as complex as a database, I get something called "getting started" and that's it. How can you prove they didn't do what they promised when they never really promised anything?