This would make software much more reliable and siginificantly reduce the maintence cost for users.

And no one would code for free or for fun.

So what if windows crashes, it's MS's fault, I'm not happy with it, I use linux, that goes for eveything software related, we're not forced to use it. We often have no choice to cross a bridge though, and if that "crashes", we're dead.

I'm sure the guy who wrote the software for Nana's respirator will be held accountable if it shoots out CO instead of O2.

To require certifaction and accountability is necessary when peoples lives are at risk, but if it's just because you don't want to reboot, well, I think it's pushing it.

Besides, bad software should == bad reputation, which is the case for most "aware" and computer-clueful people, the rest trust the hype and marketing team.

I'm not saying the computer illiterate are dumb, I'm just saying they shouldn't hop on the bandwagon so easily.

Anyway, I'm going off topic, but non mission (life) critical software IMHO shouldn't require 100% liability.