3 ms·
That thread is a huge argument for paid software. It's mind blowing how folks expect people to maintain things for nothing and get mad when it doesn't work perf
by rglover 8y ago
That thread is a huge argument for paid software. It's mind blowing how folks expect people to maintain things for nothing and get mad when it doesn't work perfectly. Some silly choices were made by the original maintainer but give the dude a break. He doesn't owe you a damn thing.
- mkeedlinger 8y agoI agree. If anything maybe those who depend on unchecked code so willingly have the burden of responsibility?
- trickstra 8y agodo you know how many of your paid software contains a similar disclaimer that removes their responsibility for the damages caused by the software? Only you'd never have a chance to look at that code and find this injection...
- rglover 8y agoYou're not wrong; quite right, in fact. My point here is less about payment guaranteeing a lack of bugs or having someone to point a finger at and more at incentivizing the team building it to fix things quickly. Of course, there's always the <Insert Negligent, Well-Compensated Fortune 500 Company Here> problem, but that's a case-by-case issue.
- no_one_ever 8y agoYes but then you have someone culpable for their mistake.
- stockkid 8y agoI agree. The author released this library under MIT license which explicitly states that there is no warranty. Yet some people in the GitHub issue thread are acting as though the author owed something to them personally.
- sarapetersara 8y agoPaid software most often contains open source components that are equally vulnerable as this one, and if you expect paid software to be explicitly better maintained in terms of code than free software... you are in for a surprise (hint: corporate release cycle is a grinder)