2 ms·
The difference is that in this case, we are talking about a company/product that is associating itself with insecure software, before that company has become hu
by Confusion 17y ago
The difference is that in this case, we are talking about a company/product that is associating itself with insecure software, before that company has become hugely successful. Bill Gates can't be hurt by the associations anymore; this product still can be hurt by association with Wordpress. Being acquired by Automattic may mean you have just limited your clients to Wordpress, because no-one else dares use a plugin by Automattic.
- jacquesm 17y agoNo, we're talking about a person joining a company that has produced insecure software and whether or not that would 'rub off'. That's a weird way of looking at it. As though people working for microsoft are automatically associated with making insecure software. The people that make wordpress that are responsible for the security - or lack there off - have some egg on their faces, but the person whose company just got acquired obviously does not. For one the acquisition is after this particular bug was found, secondly he is not working on that part of the wordpress code but on the text polishing feature. Major difference. To suggest it would 'rub off' is to lump all the wordpress employees onto one heap and assign blame/attach stigma for the acts or negligence of the wordpress security team. And that is where it should rub off on. The 'on me' bit makes it pretty clear this is a personal issue and not about people not using the software produced by the company. As in "even after you leave that company you will still carry the stigma of having worked for a company that produced insecure software".