3 ms·

>Bug free code is pretty much impossible. Some risk is accepted by the user. This wasn't your average SW bug, it was gross negligence on behalf of Crowdstreike

>Bug free code is pretty much impossible. Some risk is accepted by the user. This wasn't your average SW bug, it was gross negligence on behalf of Crowdstreike, who seems to not have heard of SW testing on actual systems and canary deployment. Big difference. Yeah SW bugs happen all the time but you have to show you took some steps to prevent them, while some dev at Crowdstrike just said "whatever, it works on my machine" and directly pushed to all customer production systems on a Friday. That's the definition of gross negligence that they didn't have any processes in place to prevent something like this. That's like a surgeon not bothering to sterilize his hands and then saying "oh well, hospital infections happen all the time".

ncr100 2y ago
The bug was egregious. Using regexp (edit: in the kernel). (Wtf. It's a bloody language.) And not sanitizing the usage. Then using it differently than testing. And boom. There's people, and there's companies. This company ought to be nuked.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  Genuinely, what good does that do? It’s all well and good to write dramatic meaningless comments on social networks like Hacker News, but if your desired had actual consequence, can you honestly say that “nuking the company” is a net positive?
  - chestertonsgate 2y ago
    Is keeping CrowdStrike around a net positive?
  - jimmySixDOF 2y ago
    You should look up Arthur Anderson
  - ncr100 2y ago
    Well, in the America we've got something called corporate personhood and it's this odd concept. It seems like an unfair concept to I don't know to me as a citizen of America. And you know laws are supposed to keep feeling like you're living in a fair world right? So, nuke the company That cause billions Of dollars in losses, millions of hours of wasted human time, potentially loss of life though we haven't you know had a study yet that identifies those people who lost their lives because of disruption to healthcare services, heart attacks that were due to stress, etc etc. Nuke them. Nuke that corporate person. Force the humans who comprise that corporation to rebuild it as a better corporation.
  - jjav 2y ago
    > can you honestly say that “nuking the company” is a net positive? Yes of course it would be positive. On the short term, remove one incompetent high-risk company from the industry. But more importantly long term, it would do a lot to encourage quality in the industry if it was known that such an outcome is possible.
dylan604 2y ago
> That's like a surgeon not bothering to sterilize his hands and then saying "oh well, hospital infections happen all the time". And hospitals and doctors have malpractice insurance. They also go through an investigation where they have their own brotherhood where it is difficult to get other doctors to testify against. There's also stories of people writing on their good leg "The other leg" in Sharpie because such moronic mistakes of removing left appendage instead of right. So even doctors are not above negligence. We just have things in place for when they do. Why you think ClownStrike is above that is bewildering. At the end of the day, mistakes happen. It's not like they have denied they were at fault. So I'm really not sure what you're actually wanting.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >It's not like they have denied they were at fault. So I'm really not sure what you're actually wanting. Paying for their mistake. In money. Admitting for their mistake is one thing, paying for it is another. If your doctor made a mistake due to his negligence that costs you, wouldn't you want compensation instead of just a hollow apology?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Want vs receive are two entirely different things. If someone did something against me in malice, damn straight I want ________. If someone makes a mistake, owns up to it, changes in ways to not make same mistake again, then that's exactly the opportunity I'd hope someone would allow for me to have if the roles were reversed. This particular company's mistake just happened to be so widespread due to their popularity makes it seemingly egregious, but there are other outages that have occurred that lasted longer and did not draw this much attention. Was it an inconvenience, yes. Was it a silly mistake in hindsight, yes. Was it fixable, yes. Was it malevolent, nope. Should you lose your job for making this mistake?

ncr100 2y ago

The bug was egregious. Using regexp (edit: in the kernel). (Wtf. It's a bloody language.) And not sanitizing the usage. Then using it differently than testing. And boom. There's people, and there's companies. This company ought to be nuked.

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
Genuinely, what good does that do? It’s all well and good to write dramatic meaningless comments on social networks like Hacker News, but if your desired had actual consequence, can you honestly say that “nuking the company” is a net positive?
- chestertonsgate 2y ago
  Is keeping CrowdStrike around a net positive?
- jimmySixDOF 2y ago
  You should look up Arthur Anderson
- ncr100 2y ago
  Well, in the America we've got something called corporate personhood and it's this odd concept. It seems like an unfair concept to I don't know to me as a citizen of America. And you know laws are supposed to keep feeling like you're living in a fair world right? So, nuke the company That cause billions Of dollars in losses, millions of hours of wasted human time, potentially loss of life though we haven't you know had a study yet that identifies those people who lost their lives because of disruption to healthcare services, heart attacks that were due to stress, etc etc. Nuke them. Nuke that corporate person. Force the humans who comprise that corporation to rebuild it as a better corporation.
- jjav 2y ago
  > can you honestly say that “nuking the company” is a net positive? Yes of course it would be positive. On the short term, remove one incompetent high-risk company from the industry. But more importantly long term, it would do a lot to encourage quality in the industry if it was known that such an outcome is possible.

dylan604 2y ago

> That's like a surgeon not bothering to sterilize his hands and then saying "oh well, hospital infections happen all the time". And hospitals and doctors have malpractice insurance. They also go through an investigation where they have their own brotherhood where it is difficult to get other doctors to testify against. There's also stories of people writing on their good leg "The other leg" in Sharpie because such moronic mistakes of removing left appendage instead of right. So even doctors are not above negligence. We just have things in place for when they do. Why you think ClownStrike is above that is bewildering. At the end of the day, mistakes happen. It's not like they have denied they were at fault. So I'm really not sure what you're actually wanting.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>It's not like they have denied they were at fault. So I'm really not sure what you're actually wanting. Paying for their mistake. In money. Admitting for their mistake is one thing, paying for it is another. If your doctor made a mistake due to his negligence that costs you, wouldn't you want compensation instead of just a hollow apology?
- dylan604 2y ago
  Want vs receive are two entirely different things. If someone did something against me in malice, damn straight I want ________. If someone makes a mistake, owns up to it, changes in ways to not make same mistake again, then that's exactly the opportunity I'd hope someone would allow for me to have if the roles were reversed. This particular company's mistake just happened to be so widespread due to their popularity makes it seemingly egregious, but there are other outages that have occurred that lasted longer and did not draw this much attention. Was it an inconvenience, yes. Was it a silly mistake in hindsight, yes. Was it fixable, yes. Was it malevolent, nope. Should you lose your job for making this mistake?