I know little about Boeing, but I'm sure the amount of money at stake, if they have a serious mechanical issue, would be staggering. I don't want to fly on a 737 Max. I worry they have too much incentive to conclude every root cause is software.
There are always hardware errata. But they're patched and papered over with firmware.
Essentially, I'm operating a system, and if you can guarantee the system functions as documented -- I don't really care how the sausage gets made.
What I would care about is if a pilot (in this metaphor, my compiler, I guess?) doesn't feel comfortable operating the system.
And I think the pilots' unions have been interesting in this. Because they don't really want to slag their employers (the airlines), but they're willing to push back hard on Boeing for essentially the same issue.
A lack of transparency about and sufficient training in differences.
> Essentially, I'm operating a system, and if you can
> guarantee the system functions as documented -- I
> don't really care how the sausage gets made.
The thing about the incentive, though, is that a software fix ticks the "we did something" box, as long as it improves the issue to any degree. That it does any good at all, combined with the lower cost, can give management (or ass-covering employees) enough substance to rationalize the decision away.
I doubt anyone at Boeing would willingly risk customer lives. But if they are working under pressure, and can say "well, we did do something to address the issue," that can lead to bad decisions.