Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 2) 187

by causality (#46799169) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

disagree: mocking people for making mistakes that they should know better is a way to help that person permanently try harder to avoid those mistakes in the future.

with failure, comes mockery, especially if you are skilled and it should never have happened.

mistakes can't go unpunished, even if the person doing the punishing is yourself, you can't tell other people to back off, you deserve it, sit back and take it on the chin and try harder next time otherwise people won't have any reason to try, because the penalty for failure is barely noticeable.

That's the old-school view, in which one's self-esteem is based on achievement of some kind. Those who achieve little or nothing had low self-esteem and this was a principal incentive to identify one's own weaknesses and overcome them with directed effort. The extreme form is Japanese students throwing themselves off buildings (etc.) because their grades didn't quite measure up, making them nobodies.

The newer view is that everyone is a special snowflake. No matter what. The extreme form is shown by the public schools that play soccer without keeping score, because scoring implies winners and losers and that might hurt someone's feelings.

I mostly agree with you in that actions have consequences and you should accept the consequences of your own actions. Otherwise nothing really matters and there is no reason to improve yourself and you turn into one of these "perpetual victims" who never take responsibility for anything while simultaneously wondering why nothing ever changes. But that should be tempered with the fact that some mistakes are much more preventable (less understandable) than others, and as Orlando Battista once said, an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

There's no reason to metaphorically crucify someone for an honest mistake, but certainly there is going to be a reaction to it and people aren't going to like it. That's to be expected. It's reasonable to expect someone to accept that and yes, it is an incentive to learn something from the experience and be more careful in the future. If I were a programmer and found that completely unacceptable, I could always choose not to work on such an important project critical to the security of so many.

As an aside: I think replying to you is much more edifying than being like the cowards who modded you down to -1 without once putting forth their own viewpoint which they clearly think is superior. There's too much of that going on at this site. There is no "-1 Disagree" mod for a reason.

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 2) 187

by causality (#46798999) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

As for why so many bugs, "so many eyes" only works if you still have tons of people actively participating in the project's development. At a glance, it seems like the OpenBSD guys are saying the OpenSSL project was getting stale. Stale projects do not have anywhere near as many eyes going through their code nor as many people actively looking for potential bugs to fix before they get reported in the wild.

Yes the "logic" used by many in this thread is specious at best.

Premise: when there are many eyes looking at open source, it leads to more bugs getting fixed.

Faulty reasoning (of too many people): this project didn't have many eyes, therefore the premise is false. Herp derp.

Correct reasoning: when the condition of "many eyes" was met, the premise is shown to be true.

Conclusion: some people dislike Open Source for ideological reasons and saw this as a chance to take cheap shots at it and show everyone how clever they are ... and failed because of faulty reasoning. Just like what you see in politics - if you happen not to like something, it must be BAD!! and cannot possibly have merits that you simply don't value.

Comment: But is it that easy? (Score 1) 187

by swb (#46798689) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

For a handful of developers to just "run through the code" and fix everything that easily? And do it quickly, without introducing other bugs?

I am not a developer, but I can remember writing software whether for BASIC, Pascal or Perl and going back to fix or extend something and seeing stuff and saying "Why did I do it that way?" and making changes that I'm not honestly sure were "improvements" except for they seemed like improvements at the time even though they may have created new bugs.

I don't know anything about the internals of OpenSSL so maybe it is that easy, but it makes me wonder why it hasn't been done before. But I suspect it is complex and having a lot of people committing changes all at once seems like it runs the risk of working a cross-purposes without a lot of coordination (which, maybe they have).

Comment: Re:And a Russian 'tug' was there (Score 1) 115

Really? what algorithms did we develop for landing on either a platform or land that deals with say 100 MPH winds, and dealing with 1G? And if developed in the 50's, then why did the lunar landings not use them? Likewise, why bother with having these competition here on earth for landing? Seems to me that the simple physics equations for dealing with gravity, are well known, but controlling a lander while dealing with wind, rain, storms, etc is quite a different thing. And yes, landing on the moon is VERY easy. BUT, landing on mars, earth, venus, or any planet or moon will be difficult due to side issues, and dealing with it.

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow