> Not "purely" but in common parlance and practice I do regard prompt > installation of fixes for "security flaws" as part of "security" in its > usual sense, yes.
Then hire some people to do it. Our crew who cares about a subset of that is at their limit. We aren't going to keep slaves, and garden fairies can't do the work. > You can understand why the average outsider reading through these public > pages might be confused and read "security" more broadly though? Maybe > it was just me. I don't care if you misread or misunderstood our web pages. Lots of other people understand them fine. > But, on the other hand, just this week I contributed Java code > to kryo-serializers and I've not even actually used that library myself > yet: I figure it all balances out but of course you may reasonably think > otherwise. So you submitted some small changes to someone. Somehow those small changes will pixie-dust turn into a driving factor which causes other people to give you "prompt installation of fixes for "security flaws" as binaries. > I figure it all balances out but of course you may reasonably think > otherwise. It does not balance out. About one thousand people write all the free software. Everyone benefits to a tremendous extent. Then some of those benefiting users come on lists and demand that a thousand volunteer do more for them. I expect more, damn it. And I want my flying car tomorrow.
