Most of what you wrote has merit, but I dont believe the author was trying to impart much of what you wrote. I let my comments inline with yours. > a) blindly

Most of what you wrote has merit, but I dont believe the author was trying to impart much of what you wrote. I let my comments inline with yours. > a) blindly 'updating' and deploying code without testing is a horrible idea This is important risk factor each organization should be aware of. Though he wasn't trying to convey this, it was merely a byproduct. > b) these trillion dollar corporations just take and take and never give, and boy do they whine and cry when the devs don't 'hold up their end of the deal' and keep turning out perfect, fully tested software for free This was the intent, but anecdotally, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Meta, Stripe, Netflix, all contribute to open source. > c) 'the source is open so anyone can look at it and therefore it's bug free' is and always has been a mentally retarded philosophy Since the source is open, it must be bug free is a flawed conclusion. Again, not the lesson Marak was imparting. > d) the software deployment process as it's currently practiced is horribly flawed I don't think that is accurate. > e) these people ought to count their blessings that the code is flawed in such an obvious and immediately detectable rather than subtle and devious and much more destructive way I can't imagine a more destructive way that would result in the catastrophe one is expecting. Should Marak have been more malicious, having a myriad of well funded corporations targeting him would not be fun. and last but not least: > f) giving control over one's code to evil microsoft via github is an incredibly stupid idea, as such authority WILL be abused by the evil scumbags. Another tradeoff organizations should understand.