So in other words, it is pretty much hopeless to make secure software for computers connected to the internet or outside world that lasts long enough (and takes little maintenance).
The reason being, because we cannot deal with complexity against all eventualities?
Even if we have relatively simple abstractions and tools in place?
I can see that you may point to other areas of human engineering such as bridges, buildings, vehicles.
All can fail given the right circumstances.
I am not asking for an unbreakable engineering product.
That seems to be rather impossible.
But I would still argue that the „security updates“ for engineering artifacts like bridges don’t need frequent „updates“ (i.e., maintenance, inspections).
Computers seem to be relatively more fragile unlike any analog engineering artifact in existence.
Some soldiers still need to know how to navigate with a sextant, because computer systems seem inherently fragile.
I can think of software dependencies that break constantly (e.g., Scala, Python).
Are you going to tell me that a bridge is more fragile than some Ruby package?
So in other words, how is it possible that anything having to do with computers is seemingly more prone to fail than a building, a bridge, a Cessna 172?
Yes all those classic engineering artifacts need constant maintenance, but I would argue that it is unlike (modern) software.
So my point is the fragility of software seems to require more maintenance (i.e., security updates) than any other human engineering artifact.
That seems unfortunate.
Software shall be rather something like a building (withstanding wind, earthquakes, …) and taking relatively low maintenance.
I just don’t understand why it requires frequent maintenance and „fixes“ within a given year.
Your smartphone does, your Windows 11 computer does, your Samsung TV does.
Your „smart“ vehicle does.
What is the ultimate reason that computer software cannot be like the other avenues of engineering?
Economic interests cannot be the sole culprit.
Free software like Debian needs fixes too.
I can see that you may point to other areas of human engineering such as bridges, buildings, vehicles. All can fail given the right circumstances. I am not asking for an unbreakable engineering product. That seems to be rather impossible.
But I would still argue that the „security updates“ for engineering artifacts like bridges don’t need frequent „updates“ (i.e., maintenance, inspections).
Computers seem to be relatively more fragile unlike any analog engineering artifact in existence. Some soldiers still need to know how to navigate with a sextant, because computer systems seem inherently fragile.
I can think of software dependencies that break constantly (e.g., Scala, Python). Are you going to tell me that a bridge is more fragile than some Ruby package?
So in other words, how is it possible that anything having to do with computers is seemingly more prone to fail than a building, a bridge, a Cessna 172? Yes all those classic engineering artifacts need constant maintenance, but I would argue that it is unlike (modern) software.
So my point is the fragility of software seems to require more maintenance (i.e., security updates) than any other human engineering artifact.
That seems unfortunate. Software shall be rather something like a building (withstanding wind, earthquakes, …) and taking relatively low maintenance.
I just don’t understand why it requires frequent maintenance and „fixes“ within a given year. Your smartphone does, your Windows 11 computer does, your Samsung TV does. Your „smart“ vehicle does.
What is the ultimate reason that computer software cannot be like the other avenues of engineering?
Economic interests cannot be the sole culprit. Free software like Debian needs fixes too.