4 ms·

Why mention it is open source then? What does that add?

by Matl 4y ago

fsckboy 4y ago
"there was a bug in an outside library that we used" does not mention open source but has the same meaning, and would probably provoke the same complaints ("they're trying to blame somebody else for their problem"). In that case, though, they could say "look, we used a popular open source library because we had more faith that it would be better tested and correct" which would be a compliment to open source. That's essentially the information that we have. In today's world, who builds anything from anything close to stratch? embedded developers, probably come closest. It's no worse or better to say "there was a bug that our release uncovered." If they continue to announce as many details as possible, we as the audience can develop a sense whether they're creating bugs or just uncovering bugs we're glad to know about.
- abujazar 4y ago
  I think it's fair to mention the bug originated in redis-py, but I don't find it relevant at all to mention «open-source» in the opening line of the public statement about the outage. Or «outside library» for that matter. It was ChatGPT release QA that failed, and then they failed to admit it.
  - tnzk 4y ago
    It might be redis-py originally and someone at public relations advised to replace it with something more general so that it would sound being nice.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is a compliment to open source, and telling your users that you use open source is a positive reassurance on other dimensions as well; it's relevant, and the truth is always relevant; there's no harm in mentioning it. "Release early, release often" and "move fast and break things" are respected ideas that diminish the importance of QA. The more effective and efficient any QA you do is, yes, very valuable, and QA that finds broken things, all the better. But don't move slow is an OK compromise.
clnq 4y ago
On the other hand, why overthink it?
xdavidliu 4y ago
why not mention it? What does mentioning it subtract?
- abujazar 4y ago
  «Open source» was in the opening line of the statement as if it was something to blame.

Why mention it is open source then? What does that add?

by Matl 4y ago

Why mention it is open source then? What does that add?

"there was a bug in an outside library that we used" does not mention open source but has the same meaning, and would probably provoke the same complaints ("they're trying to blame somebody else for their problem"). In that case, though, they could say "look, we used a popular open source library because we had more faith that it would be better tested and correct" which would be a compliment to open source. That's essentially the information that we have. In today's world, who builds anything from anything close to stratch? embedded developers, probably come closest. It's no worse or better to say "there was a bug that our release uncovered." If they continue to announce as many details as possible, we as the audience can develop a sense whether they're creating bugs or just uncovering bugs we're glad to know about.

abujazar 4y ago
I think it's fair to mention the bug originated in redis-py, but I don't find it relevant at all to mention «open-source» in the opening line of the public statement about the outage. Or «outside library» for that matter. It was ChatGPT release QA that failed, and then they failed to admit it.
- tnzk 4y ago
  It might be redis-py originally and someone at public relations advised to replace it with something more general so that it would sound being nice.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is a compliment to open source, and telling your users that you use open source is a positive reassurance on other dimensions as well; it's relevant, and the truth is always relevant; there's no harm in mentioning it. "Release early, release often" and "move fast and break things" are respected ideas that diminish the importance of QA. The more effective and efficient any QA you do is, yes, very valuable, and QA that finds broken things, all the better. But don't move slow is an OK compromise.

clnq 4y ago

On the other hand, why overthink it?

xdavidliu 4y ago

why not mention it? What does mentioning it subtract?

abujazar 4y ago
«Open source» was in the opening line of the statement as if it was something to blame.