3 ms·
>if a developer screwed up so badly that a patch is required Required patching isn't necessarily due to a "developer screw[ed] up" - it's as likely to be that
by warrenm 4y ago
>if a developer screwed up so badly that a patch is required
Required patching isn't necessarily due to a "developer screw[ed] up" - it's as likely to be that an upstream package has a discovered vulnerability, or something like the Intel fiasco from a few years ago, etc
Don't assign to illwill or incompetence what's more likely to be accidental, or ignorance
- huhtenberg 4y agoIntel case was an extreme exception. Irrespective of the root cause, all critical issues are still ultimately on the developer and it's the developer who should absorb the costs. If they can't afford that or can't do it in a way that's not disruptive to the normal use of the software, then it's still their problem, not users.
- warrenm 4y agoyou're not a dev, I see
- huhtenberg 4y ago... and you must be from sales.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- warrenm 4y agolol nope but nice try (and thanks for admitting you don't understand the problem, and instead want to unilaterally blame someone else for something which likely wasn't their problem)