In my personal life I write software for the manufacturing industry. Professionally, I am an engineer, and write code for computer-operated equipment (lathes and mills, commonly known as CNC machines.)
For a sense of scale, let me say that most CNC programs are under 250 lines of code. In addition to controlling the cutting tools, the programs will check for operator input mistakes: Tools can only be adjusted within a narrow range, anything outside that range and the machine won't run. Did the operator slow it down to check something and forget to turn it back to 100%? Machine won't run. And so on. Idiot-proofing, dimensional checks and feedback, torque monitoring, etc.
Before we even let the customer see their new machine, we have already run the machine for 8 hours of hands-off auto cycling of the program. We have also run each cutting tool through enough parts to ensure the cutting conditions are optimal. Then for the customer we run an additional hands-off production run of 8 hours or 35 pieces (whichever is greater) and then do a 100% inspection of every feature out to 5 decimal places, followed by some statistical analysis to measure capability. Once the customer is happy, we ship the machine and repeat this on their floor. Then we spend a few days going over the statistical analysis, then a week of training for their operators. Only then is it ready for producing parts that make sure your car door latches with 18lbs of force rather than 19lbs.
Oh, yeah... we provide the computer code to the customer as well, every line commented for clarity.
Doesn't it seem like voting software, which likely is thousands of lines of code, should be made open-source and go through some sort of approval process before being used for real? Isn't this software vetted or tested or examined at all?
-+Edit+- I should clarify... I am not claiming that voting software and CNC programs are similar in architecture, language, layout, complexity, or structure. My point is, if a fairly simple g-code program and its performance is vetted so thoroughly by the end user, at multiple points in its development and prove out, then why in the hell isn't the software that determines how my vote is recorded given the same level of scrutiny? I didn't realize my example was too convoluted for so many snowflakes.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
An additional clarification... I don't give a shit about the bureaucrats or diversity hires... I want the public at large to have open access. I want to make sure the routine that adds "one" doesn't have any conditional statements. If Sha'niqu'a is going to use the software to display a number, I want to look over the routine that handles the output and make certain it is rig-proof. If everybody can see it, then confidence in the system goes up.
Code errors are caught by people who didn't write the code... because presumably the person writing the code thought it was right, and is therefore less likely to see a mistake. So let's all see all the code, so there's no "glitches" like this. I know you can't find all the bugs, but you can sure as hell see any underhanded "stuff" if you look hard enough.
[–] cantaloupe6 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The Chinese hardware and firmware can adjust the contents of memory.
[–] Interruptedagain ago
I'm agreeing with you on this. I'm just saying that in the system that we now have it is those retard affirmative action hires that see and approve of the code. That has got to change! We all need access to it.