PCOS machine

In UP, just like any school that teaches computer science, we tell our students the importance of testing. Testing ensures that your software conforms to the specification. There is no software that is 100% bug-free; however, you should ensure that no major bugs are present before you submit it to the teacher, or to the client.

What happened in latest election brouhaha involving the PCOS machines is simply a display of inefficiency of both Smartmatic and Comelec.

Smartmatic is at fault for not testing that the software works with the hardware. What is worse is that the Comelec failed in catching this error and for allowing the machines to be deployed!

Several questions come to mind now.

1. What happened to the software review? The review should have included the software running on actual hardware under all conditions, ideal or otherwise. Comelec paid for he software review and and now we get this -- an error in software and hardware integration? Are we getting our money back?

2. Did Smartmatic test the software before loading it on all the PCOS machines prior to deployment? I highly doubt this. If they did test it, this wouldn't have happened. This is VERY BASIC! For such to be missed, what can be said of Smartmatic now?

3. Who is in charge of QA at Comelec? A problem like this invites people to think that somehow someone just let this pass without testing. Was someone bribed to let this pass? Sorry but you cannot blame us for thinking like this.

4. Smartmatic will now change the code in the memory cards and reload it on the PCOS machines. Question is - who will review the code now?

This defeats the purpose of the code review prior to deployment! Now, you invite us to think that this is an opportunity to insert malicious code into the software!

5. Is Smartmatic going to be penalized for all of these problems?

I apologize to the Comelec: We know that you are trying to regain the trust and confidence of the people. However, with what has been happening the past few days, how can we trust you?

Sorry, Comelec, but I think the only way for you to regain our trust is to allow a parallel manual count for just the two top positions.

If, and when, we prove that the machines are working accurately, then the results for all other positions can be deemed accurate and acceptable (again, we are throwing a bone here, so to speak).

If a simple TEST BEFORE YOU DEPLOY wasn't done, what other major tasks were missed? What is your guess?