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: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-09 13:09:49 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Wilden" <mark@mwilden.com>
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: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:09:54 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <tn5rgdaovngv7d@news.supernews.com>
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>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11703 comp.lang.c:73242
 comp.lang.c++:81323 comp.lang.functional:7448
Date: 2001-08-09T13:09:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de...
> 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.

Who is responsible for avoiding such misunderstandings? Hint: if the author
doesn't take this responsibility, he'll end up without any customers to
misunderstand.

I'm not saying the customer is always right. But they're paying us, not the
other way around.