Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Thread beginning with comment 354164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by sadyc
by wannabe geek on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:14
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sadyc"
Except that, for one reason or other, they don't know? And even if they did, who cares who's to blame? Wouldn't it be more important to save lives than play petty blame games? I presume you would gladly let people suffer and die just to point the finger at the execs?
In the example they do know someone claims there's a problem, and they refuse to buy the details. It's easy to go like "would you let people suffer and die...?". You might as well claim that doctors should work for free, and not just doctors, but (more to the point) engineers and anyone whose work may somehow save lives or reduce human suffering.
Who cares if it's not open source? That's not the point. The point is to not expose the unknowing consumer to risks.
Look, the bottom line here is that desktop operating systems nowadays are extremely vulnerable to malware, and should never be relied upon for any kind of life-sensitive use, unless complete isolation is guaranteed. If a cobalt-60 unit is hooked to a Mac where medical students surf through porn sites, and something bad happens because of that, the last person I would blame is the guy who failed to disclose a Mac vulnerability for free.
RE[6]: Comment by sadyc
by Soulbender on Sat 21st Mar 2009 16:28
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by sadyc"
You might as well claim that doctors should work for free, and not just doctors, but (more to the point) engineers and anyone whose work may somehow save lives or reduce human suffering.
Congratulations, you once again miss the point. I'm baffled by the egoism at display in this thread.
It's not about working for free, it's about not withholding important information.
To use your doctor comparison it would be like, say, a research doctor working for company X discovered a serious, perhaps fatal, flaw in a drug manufactured and sold by company Y. Now, company Y may or may not be aware of this flaw and certainly they should have a QA process that had found it. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe someone turned a blind eye. Now, this doctor also knows that there's a big medical conference in a year from now and it would be a boost for his career and the company if he could show off his finding at that conference. What you, and many others here, are suggesting is that it is perfectly acceptable for this doctor to withhold this crucial information from the public and the authorities simply because he wants to further himself and the company and make a buck.
I would hope that it was obvious how callous and selfish this line of reasoning is.





Member since:
2005-08-18
Except that, for one reason or other, they don't know? And even if they did, who cares who's to blame? Wouldn't it be more important to save lives than play petty blame games? I presume you would gladly let people suffer and die just to point the finger at the execs?
The blame can be assessed at a later time, it won't go away just because you expose the problem. If you keep the problem secret and sell it to them silently there sure as hell won't be any blame dished out.
Good job missing the point again. It's not about who is closed source and evil or has brown pants or whatever. It's about behaving responsibly and not leaving the general public exposed to danger.
He sat on the bug for a year. FOR A YEAR. Two wrongs does not make a right.
Yes, because all software must be FOSS. It magically makes everything ok. Blah blah blah.
Who cares if it's not open source? That's not the point. The point is to not expose the unknowing consumer to risks.