3 ms·

I believe the devils advocate is that one of the 4 articles is an original article and the other three read the first one and wrote their own copy for eyeballs.

I believe the devils advocate is that one of the 4 articles is an original article and the other three read the first one and wrote their own copy for eyeballs. I do think for the defense and a lot of other industries it would be good for them to buy OSS code through a third-party that actually vetted the versions for bugs and other issues. Like the alternative is each of the defense companies expecting each of their developers to vet each library which is just a colossal wasted of work.

wolverine876 3y ago
> I believe the devils advocate is that one of the 4 articles is an original article and the other three read the first one and wrote their own copy for eyeballs. Without being pedantic, what do you think of my counterargument to that point in the GP? (No complaint if you missed it, but let's start from there.)
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > When it appears in diverse multiple places simultaneously, I generally believe someone is coordinating a media campaign. You may think that's paranoid but look at the merits of the argument: how else is it explained? They didn't coincidentally think of the exact same argument This counterargument? I think my comment still applies. One of them had an original thought and the other copied them. However, on further research I think at least with this article you are correct. The guy works for Chainguard [1] so he has a financial interest in the Iron Bank no longer existing. The guys previous article for Log4J [1] is arguing for public funds to be spent auditing OSS. And given his current work I don't think he's against FOSS; just as long as you get the FOSS through him. [1]: https://www.chainguard.dev/ https://www.chainguard.dev/ [2]: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/08/military-should-red-team-open-source-code/375635/ https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/08/military-should-red...
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    C'mon, you didn't even read to the end of the paragraph you quoted.

wolverine876 3y ago

> I believe the devils advocate is that one of the 4 articles is an original article and the other three read the first one and wrote their own copy for eyeballs. Without being pedantic, what do you think of my counterargument to that point in the GP? (No complaint if you missed it, but let's start from there.)

lesuorac 3y ago
> When it appears in diverse multiple places simultaneously, I generally believe someone is coordinating a media campaign. You may think that's paranoid but look at the merits of the argument: how else is it explained? They didn't coincidentally think of the exact same argument This counterargument? I think my comment still applies. One of them had an original thought and the other copied them. However, on further research I think at least with this article you are correct. The guy works for Chainguard [1] so he has a financial interest in the Iron Bank no longer existing. The guys previous article for Log4J [1] is arguing for public funds to be spent auditing OSS. And given his current work I don't think he's against FOSS; just as long as you get the FOSS through him. [1]: https://www.chainguard.dev/ https://www.chainguard.dev/ [2]: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/08/military-should-red-team-open-source-code/375635/ https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/08/military-should-red...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  C'mon, you didn't even read to the end of the paragraph you quoted.