This is completely missing the point and intent of the article. The author is (IMO, rightly) getting pissed about "technology journalists" at places like Forbe

This is completely missing the point and intent of the article. The author is (IMO, rightly) getting pissed about "technology journalists" at places like Forbes, or bankers at JP Morgan, who will smugly say stuff like, "Oh, there was a really horrible vulnerability in this software, and there's nothing we can do until those incompetent programmers get out a patch" (even if this is not explicitly said, it is often implied in these articles). They completely overlook the fact that a) The source it right there. You think you can do a better job, please fix it and submit a patch upstream. Or post on the bugtracker. b) The reason this is a problem is usually because of lack of sanitization of user input before passing it to bash. So that is your problem, not really bash itself. Use one of the patches out there that disable the "feature" that leads to the bug. How many articles state stuff like "Thousands of organizations over the world use bash, yet no one has discovered this for 22 years. This means a lot of companies are not taking security seriously enough to audit the (open) source of the code they ride on."? Until we start seeing articles that address the complex social and economic aspects of the issue, I don't blame FSF supporters for being pissed at them.