> Kent Borg said on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:39:33 -0700
>
>>On 7/24/24 10:06, Daniel M Gessel wrote:
>>> The failure does seem incompetent to the point of negligence and I
>>> wouldn't be surprised to see it tested in court: big companies lost
>>> large amounts of money; lawsuits may start happening so
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:37:27 -0400
Ian Kelling wrote:
> FSF wrote a blog about this which I really enjoyed
> https://www.fsf.org/news/lets-not-celebrate-crowdstrike-lets-point-to-a-better-way
Just two points about that, and I acknowledge my anti-FSF knee-jerk
reaction here.
First, the aphorism
On 7/25/24 14:13, Rich Pieri wrote:
First, the aphorism that, "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow," is
demonstrably wrong.
It might actually *be* true, were the precondition true, if there
actually *were* there a lot of eyes. But there aren't.
It turns out reading source code is not a ma
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:25:34 -0700
Kent Borg wrote:
> It might actually *be* true, were the precondition true, if there
> actually *were* there a lot of eyes. But there aren't.
Even if there were, they're only going to spot the low-hanging fruit
because they either don't know what they are look
I agree that a large number of superficial readings won't find issues
that fewer, more careful investigations could - whether "free as in
freedom" software is more reliable, efficient and capable than
proprietary software (or visa versa) is an unanswered question.
And theFSF does seem to hold
