by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday August 27, 2011 @09:46AM (#37227160)
The one thing that I've found really astounding about this whole ordeal is how despicably some members of the open source community have acted towards Apache and its developers. The pure hatred they have spewed is absurd. For such a large and widely-used piece of software, Apache has a superb record of being secure and reliable. The ridicule it has received lately, especially from the open source community, is disheartening.
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back. Of course, these people delivering the criticism won't admit that their own software is far buggier and insecure than Apache. The developers of PHP would never break a critical security-related function like crypt(), right?
Calm down dear.
They were simply taking an example of someone who isn't good with computers, which in most people's cases could equally be the grandfather.
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back
Let me ask, is mixing free and non-free software acceptable to you? The FLOSS community promotes using open source above all else, for the sake of more people using open source. If "shut up if you can't program" was their motto, its user base should be a tiny fraction of what it is. Unless you think people like being told to "shut up and use it anyway."
You wouldn't DARE tell me, not-a-programmer, use open source "just because", and do not complain about it, in anything short of suicidal fantasies. UNIX
In particular, I'd love to know what browser you are using to produce your rant, cause I'm not aware of any browser implementation available today that "works" in the manner you suggest they should.
In the meantime, I'll stick with what "reasonably works, and coincidentally works better than the commercial alternatives". You know, like, Apache.
Your entire post is basically that you don't like seeing Apache criticized on message boards. So what? You even end with a pointless remark about programmers you assume don't know C, as if that has anything to do with anything. Apache brought criticism onto themselves. The bug is more than four-and-a-half years old.
Apache has an excellent security record. (Score:4, Interesting)
The one thing that I've found really astounding about this whole ordeal is how despicably some members of the open source community have acted towards Apache and its developers. The pure hatred they have spewed is absurd. For such a large and widely-used piece of software, Apache has a superb record of being secure and reliable. The ridicule it has received lately, especially from the open source community, is disheartening.
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back. Of course, these people delivering the criticism won't admit that their own software is far buggier and insecure than Apache. The developers of PHP would never break a critical security-related function like crypt(), right?
Offensive (Score:2, Interesting)
From the article:
"This problem is so obvious, my grandmother could identify it."
As a 49 yo grandmother, C programmer of 20+ years, and a feminist this offends me. They wouldn't have said grandfather.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back
Let me ask, is mixing free and non-free software acceptable to you? The FLOSS community promotes using open source above all else, for the sake of more people using open source. If "shut up if you can't program" was their motto, its user base should be a tiny fraction of what it is. Unless you think people like being told to "shut up and use it anyway."
You wouldn't DARE tell me, not-a-programmer, use open source "just because", and do not complain about it, in anything short of suicidal fantasies. UNIX
Re: (Score:2)
Grow up folks, buy software when it works.
You let me know how that works out for you.
In particular, I'd love to know what browser you are using to produce your rant, cause I'm not aware of any browser implementation available today that "works" in the manner you suggest they should.
In the meantime, I'll stick with what "reasonably works, and coincidentally works better than the commercial alternatives". You know, like, Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire post is basically that you don't like seeing Apache criticized on message boards. So what? You even end with a pointless remark about programmers you assume don't know C, as if that has anything to do with anything. Apache brought criticism onto themselves. The bug is more than four-and-a-half years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Apache brought criticism onto themselves. The bug is more than four-and-a-half years old.
This memory allocation bug is distinct from Zalewski's bandwidth multiplying bug.
Indeed, both stem from "silly" Range handling, but they are still different bugs. I.e., the bug is not 4+ years old.
Re: (Score:1)
Apache is the #1 server on the Internet. Of course it's the #1 attacked too. Duh! Go back under your bridge, troll.