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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-09 13:05:22 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)
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.
Date: 9 Aug 2001 15:05:18 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <h8zNbBoS8xoF@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <t0kok9.1p4.ln@10.0.0.2> <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <ldbsk9.1gl.ln@10.0.0.2> <9kubta$h4p$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 997387024 26970 192.135.80.34 (9 Aug 2001
 19:57:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:57:04 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11702 comp.lang.c:73238
 comp.lang.c++:81321 comp.lang.functional:7447
Date: 2001-08-09T15:05:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de>, "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de> 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.