On Nov 7, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
How so? Haven't we recently seen an across the board bug in
multiple version of $vendor code?
And that's evidence of what other than nobody is willing to pay
for what it
takes to get better code out of $vendor?
Code can be built better. It just isn't always economical to do so.
In some business models.
Financial reports regularly hint that $vendor has margins far
exceeding the
costs necessity to clean up security-critical code. When the
aggregate
margins drop thanks to folks choosing $vendor2 because $vendor has
decided
to let security flaws stew, it's time for $vendor to reevaluate that
business model -- at least a little.
Apparently they're still in business, and they're making money, and
that means people are still buying their stuff. And as long as
that's true, nothing will change. Correlating a margins over a very
large product range with bugs specifically in service provider gear
is problematic in my opinion. Apples v Oranges. Whatever, it really
doesn't matter.
Reliability should be engineered by the SP, not exclusively expected
from any one vendor. And you can improve reliability by using same
devices in a particular fashion, not just by using different devices,
which was my whole point about calculating reliability in the first
place.
Thanks,
Christian
