chestertonsgate

Except nobody is asking for perfection here. Every time these disasters happen, people reflexively respond to any hint of oversight with stuff like this. And yet, the cockups are always hilariously bad. It's not "oh, we found a 34-step buffer overflow that happens once every century, it's "we pushed an untested update to eight million computers lol oops". If folks are afraid that we can't prevent THAT, then please tell me what software they've worked on so I can never use it ever.

Is keeping CrowdStrike around a net positive?

Bug-free code is impossible. Stupid, negligent bug-free code, however, is very much doable. You just can't hire anyone who happens to be able to fog a mirror to write it.

Small reminder that the law already has a way of deciding liability for damages, and you don't have to directly drop a bridge on someone to get in trouble.

I hope you realize that "sowwy, there's too much code :3" will not fly with whatever government decides to regulate software after the next major cock-up. We can either grow up and set our own terms, or we can have them forced on us by bureaucrats whose last computer was an Apple II. Choose.

Performance is dead in the trunk next to a shovel and some quicklime. I know people say they take performance seriously, but as someone who is also a user of commercial software, I am reminded of James Baldwin: "I don't believe what you say, because I see what you do".

You would not want for a sympathetic ear if you also criticized these companies. The point is not that CrowdStrike is uniquely incompetent, not at all. Every critical organization needs to be held to a higher standard, not just incompetent security firms.

I'm sorry, how has CrowdStrike at all demonstrated that they're going to do better?

I'm sorry, when did the switch flip in this industry where we decided we didn't want to hire people with expertise and experience?