[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mICQ roundup



On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 01:34:31AM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> Miros/law Baran <baran@knm.org.pl> writes:

> > 17.02.2003 pisze Remi Vanicat (vanicat@debian.org):

> >> And maybe I should call 911: I've heard my neighbor having a
> >> dispute, may be they will kill one another next time. Who knows? 

> > There is one problem with the analogies; they are mostly false.

> I must agree. my problem is that I really see a difference between a
> definitive act (destroying data) and a temporary act (disabling a
> program). 

What if such code had been inserted into the source to Apache, and after
the timer went off, Apache would no longer start?  Would that still be a
forgiveable offense if it causes a user to lose sales as a result?  If
not, why not?

How do you know there aren't users who depend on the micq package to the
same degree that some depend on Apache?  You might presume this is the
case after the fact, if only because we don't have any flames from users
over this particular issue.  How would Rüdiger have known this
beforehand?

How are these two scenarios qualitatively different?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpoccs5TQjdf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: