> I mean I get it: large corporations (1) don't necessarily have my interests at heart; (2) are not able to perfectly execute (on extremely large and complicate

> I mean I get it: large corporations (1) don't necessarily have my interests at heart; (2) are not able to perfectly execute (on extremely large and complicated) products and systems. > um. This is as radical as taking a stand that the sun sets in the west. If all you're picking up from this is the emotional component (aka "outrage"), I think you've missed the point. The larger problem now is that Intel (in this case) consciously chose to ignore serious risks for their customers and is currently doing their best PR job to downplay the impact of those risks now that they have been exposed. The reality is that these bugs are potentially catastrophic. But maybe we are supposed to simply accept that that is part of the risk of living in this modern world. When large corporations make serious mistakes that are predictable and that others publicly warned about, they deserve all the criticism that comes their way. My question is why anyone who doesn't work for the PR department of one of these corporations feels the emotional need to defend them from justly deserved criticism? They didn't include all the responsible stakeholders in their mitigation efforts, that decision put the users of those OSes at risk, and so the developers of those OSes are pissed about it. Why is that unacceptable to you? Why do you consider that to be "wrong"?