Re: OpenSSL development (Heartbleed)

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:13:58 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> a écrit:

> […]
>
> What does funding or not of their project have to do with
> reasons forrejection? And what does funding or not of their
> project have to do with rejection or not? And what does funding
> or not of your project have to do with (reasons for) rejection?
>
> Apple, for example, is known to be secretive about how they will
> finally react, or not react, to bug reports. They are well funded.
>
> Thus it might be an ideal situation when funding means maintenance
> and (responsive) support, but I don't see that funding entails
> the latter two.
>
> […]
>
> Right, and rhetoric is a well established human activity, too.
> Human activities is what may or may not turn the hypothesis that
> Funding = Quality_Assurance into a fact, in each case.

You show it does not always help, especially with some companies. OK.

Since the initial message, I have not suggested it's a mechanical rule,  
just that there are things which may help and others which may make it  
less likely (I suspect we may somewhat agree on this). Offering a  
favourable context, surely can help. If ever you doubt it can help, just  
think about these graduate schools dropping Ada courses because their  
students want to learn something which come with paid job (not unpaid  
volunteer job) opportunities, and this is so even in france, “the country  
of Ada” (just teasing with what's in quotes… I know many countries are  
country of Ada too).

I will stop arguing on this, with this message, which will be the last one  
:-P .

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University