3 ms·

I don't think it's unfair at all. Security and privacy were, after all, Diaspora's raison d'etre. And, as we all know (and Diaspora demonstrated, yet again) s

I don't think it's unfair at all. Security and privacy were, after all, Diaspora's raison d'etre. And, as we all know (and Diaspora demonstrated, yet again) security is not something that can be bolted on afterwards, but has to be baked in from the start; otherwise you are looking at a rewrite. "Amateurish failure" pretty much nails it, if you ask me, and if the Diaspora guys were working for me, I'd be showing them the door as quickly as I could manage it. That may sound harsh, but it's the voice of hard-earned experience.

erez 16y ago
> Security and privacy were, after all, Diaspora's raison d'etre. The irony of its all is that Facebook's privacy issues has nothing to do with open/closed source. They can open they're entire source-tree tomorrow, it wouldn't make them more privacy-oriented than now. It's not how they collect the information or how they store it, but what they do with it and with whom they share it. >"Amateurish failure" pretty much nails it I think part of the problem here is, as much as those guys have good intention, the whole affair was ill-handled from the start. From the get-go, asking for money before showing any effort made me sceptical of the whole affair. The amount of exposure and money they got, without anything even resembling code, or implementation details was absurd. And then, what they initially came up with could've been done by a few software devs working on their free time, and was riddled by security issues. My advice to those guys is to use the money and hire some good programmers, which is what most startup guys do.