From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-10 00:14:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!news.powertech.no!nntp.newmedia.no!newsfeed1.enitel.no!news.telia.no!not-for-mail Sender: kma@eris.bgo.nera.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu> <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kubta$h4p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> From: Ketil Z Malde Mail-Copies-To: never Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Copyleft) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:14:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.204.181.130 X-Complaints-To: abuse@enitel.no X-Trace: news.telia.no 997427692 195.204.181.130 (Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:14:52 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:14:52 CEST Organization: Enitel Internet Public Access Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11744 comp.lang.c:73349 comp.lang.c++:81480 comp.lang.functional:7460 Date: 2001-08-10T07:14:52+00:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > In article <9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de>, "Joachim Durchholz" writes: > > Marin David Condic wrote: > >> Failure of software is 100% due to mistakes made by the author. :-) >> Wrong. A sizable fraction is due to misunderstandings between author and >> customer (or whoever writes the specifications), and it's not always the >> author who's responsible for them. > It was a mistake by the author to accept an ambiguous specification. > If the specification is unambigous but not what the customer wanted, > that is not a failure of the software. You might as well say it was a mistake by the customer to hire an author that makes mistakes. I don't think this is leading anywhere. -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants