Should nobody be hugging THOSE servers either?

As a former cloud administrator: no. When you have 2000 physical servers, why do you care that 50 of them are currently broken? Why would I care that the hard drive failed in one and I had to re-install it (with an identical image and configuration to the other 1999 servers)

Hell, we had servers that never worked from the day they were delivered and no one gave a shit: it went on the backlog for the DC guys to diagnose and RMA. Some of them got fixed after 6 months.

How many gasoline cars the same age as a typical tesla have caught on fire?

On 24 August 2010, BBC News reported that ten [Ferrari] 458s had either crashed or caught fire in just three months.

Yes but are there any microbes that survive all of those in an active form at the same time? I don't disbelieve that some inactive microbes could essentially hibernate on Mars indefinitely. However certain conditions need to exist for those microbes to flourish.

The little critters near the thermal vents in the bottom of the ocean are pretty tough but ultraviolet light isn't something they've ever had to deal with and its unlikely they have any protection against it. Same with anything in antartica. They can do -40 and they can do ultraviolet light but can they do 0 oxygen?

Its not about saying "Huzzah this can survive 3 out of the 4 requirements!". They need to survive all of them and that seems unlikely. Unless we were planning on digging a hole, dropping them in there and covering them back up. Again assume the soil isn't too different for them to adapt.

If Boeing was interested in getting people into space, more than a handful of them would be there. The fact is that it has taken a company that was outside of the system, with a tiny fraction of Boeing's funding, to make more progress than Boeing has.

And of course it's in the U.S. interest to make sure the Russians have an active and completely up-to-date source of rocket engines for their nuclear missles.

In this vein, I wonder what it is we are paying the Chinese to do?

I'm one of these irritating DevOps types.

The Dev side of me loves Ruby. It's a nice language, it's powerful, the standard library is nicely complete and there are Gems for pretty much everything I could ever need.

The Ops side of me hates Ruby. Managing all those Gems on any given server is just horrible, rbenv & rvm need to die in a fire, there are a apparently one hundred different ways to run an application and proxy requests to it, and of courses Gems exist outside of the system package manager and that's always bad.

The bandwidth was apparently pretty good but grandpa says the latency sucked.

No, that isn't the idea at all. The idea is that the good developers become better developers because they gain an understanding of basic operational requirements, and the operations guys become better operations guys because they gain a better understanding of the software they're supporting.

While I agree that some developers are cavalier with rules, consideration of resources is fundamental to writing software

There have been a number of occasions where I've had to say things like "No, you can't have 10 VMWare instances with 1TB disk and 140GB of RAM each. Because the VMWare cluster doesn't have the resources available, that's why." and "If you'd asked, you'd already know we don't have 2 DL380's with 192GB of RAM and 4TB of RAID1 disk in each datacenter. No I know you 'need' it, but it doesn't exist."

Usually the conversation then has to diverge into an overview of the concept of capacity planning and horizontal scalability.

Thankfully those kinds of conversations are rare these days.

I've worked at a Fortune 100 company

Ditto. My previous role was at HP, and our group couldn't have done the work we did in the time we had if we hadn't have used a DevOps model to do it.

Developers don't know how to run a production environment.

Yes. That's the problem that DevOps attempts to solve. You're supposed to have both "Developers who do Ops" and "Ops guys who develop" in one team to do "DevOps".

If you're working in a place that's done "We'll just get the developers to do Operations" then they're doing it wrong.

I think we need to take a serious look at the "many eyes" theory because of this. Apparently, there were no eyes on the part of parties that did not wish to exploit the bug for close to two years. And wasn't there just a professional audit by Red Hat that caught another bug, but not this one?

I have to say I'm even less confident in the plan to couple it to DNSSEC.

Sure. We're better. But we need to be even better than that.

I'd say more than just the "community". We have a great many companies that incorporate this software and generate billions from the sales of applications or services incorporating it, without returning anything to its maintenance.I think it's a sensible thing to ask Intuit, for example: "What did you pay to help maintain OpenSSL?". And then go down the list of companies.