I agree with a previous poster who said that the
developers mentioned in this article are not
behaving in a mature, professional manner. While
it's true that for technical support type roles, you
often have to assume that the user is an idiot
(because there are far too many idiots in the
world), the same does not hold for bug reports. If
the user says "I can't do this (because I don't
know how)" it is a totally different story than if the
user says "This doesn't work". As the developer of
a product, your responsibility is to investigate the
user's problems. That's all there is to it... a
developer who doesn't do this is no good at all.
Software is not meant to be written then thrown
away; it is meant to be used by someone. That
user dictates what the software does and how it
works... that is the basic reason why the code is
Furthermore, if the user is an idiot (or is assumed
to be), that does NOT permit the developer or tech
support person to be rude or obnoxious. After all,
the dev/tech support person's JOB is to help the
user, no matter how stupid the user may be.
(Don't get me wrong, not all users are stupid, but
A developer who refuses to acknowledge that a
bug exists without investigating the bug should be
reprimanded or fired. This is similar to a tech
support person who refuses to answer the phone;
investigating and fixing bugs is part of the
If, as one poster suggested, the developer DOES
answer to bug reports by saying that the problem
can not be replicated, then the user should report
how the bug can be replicated, or at least that it
continues to occur. Then, the developer's job is to
investigate the bug further. If the developer
refuses, he (or she) is again not doing his job.
Not every job is fun all the time; writing code is
lots of fun for some people, while fixing bugs
(especially bugs found by users) is not as much
fun. But it comes with the job; either do the whole
job, or find a different career.
It could work
There are a couple issues about a distributed web; the primary one is security. How do you know if the data you are receiving from a web site is the actual data that the site operators put there? You don't really know. The thing is that it is not a simple task to impersonate a web server; so these sorts of things don't happen often. But in the case of a distributed browsing network, it becomes much easier to change the data on the fly. Users would need a way to ensure that the data they are receiving is authentic.
There are, of course, encryption schemes that would allow this, such as PGP/GPG-signed content. However, the problem then remains about key distribution.
If you think about it, a distributed network is truly the original goal of the Internet; it would totally decentralize the content making it very hard to destroy or shut down.