I see how one could interpret it that way. I meant to imply rather that software generally needs to be regularly changed in order to continue providing value to its paying customers.
At minimum, you've got keeping up with security patches, library/framework deprecations etc. Software which has literally not been changed in years is often an insecure timebomb, with unpatched vulnerabilities, and as soon as you do need to change it, you're stuck because all its dependencies are deprecated. Besides, you also need to keep up with the market, competitors, customers' usage patterns changing, etc.
Ok, that's a reasonable position, though not one I completely agree with.
It would be nice if we as customers had the freedom to pick up which upgrades to install, and to limit ourselves to security patches and (maybe, some) library deprecations. Windows upgrades let you do just that, even if it is a pain to manage. In my previous job, we held monthly meetings to discuss which windows patches to install in our dozens of business critical Win2k3 servers.
For most software, upgrades are opaque. In the best case, you are given a binary choice: install now or install later. In many cases you dont even get that, either the product stops working until you apply the patch or the patch gets automatically applied without your explicit consent.
Which would itself not be a problem if most upgrades did what they are ment to do. Instead, as the GP suggest, patches introduce new (sometimes critical) bugs all the time. With pure repair patches, the balance is mostly positive siince they fix more bug than they break, but with every new feature (which usually is required by a minority of very vocal customers) comes a risk that some other more important feature is going to stop working as expected.
Industry wide, we lack the discipline to change things in a responsible way. Change management is today what source version control was back in the 90s: something that most people has heard good things about, but most people is not doing correctly, and a significan minority not at all.
It's a bad analogy because they don't upgrade ships while they are in use. People aren't saying software is most stable when it's not used, they are saying it's most stable when people stop changing it.
