I actually am fairly uncomfortable about it, even if our firm stipulation was that they cannot tell us what to do. We are simply doing what we do anyways - securing software - and they have no say in the matter. I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built.

So the HP guy comes up to me (at the Melbourne conference) and he says, 'If you say nasty things like that to vendors you're not going to get anything'. I said, 'No, in eight years of saying nothing, we've got nothing, and I'm going to start saying nasty things, in the hope that some of these vendors will start giving me money so I'll shut up'.

The primary goal of a vendor is to make money.

C++ is a pile of crap.

I don't know if there's enough vision. Industry wide, the apathy regarding this recent problem is already setting in - shiny things are happening elsewhere, people are forgetting.

What's so exciting is to be able to just take something and polish it so much that hopefully in the future people will start borrowing things from it.

[...] beer results in ideas, which results in new code.

In some industry markets, high quality can be tied to making more money, but I am sure by now all of us know the computer industry is not like that.

Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run.

I work on OpenBSD fulltime, as the project leader. I set some directions, increase communication between the developers, and try to be involved in nearly every aspect of the base system.

Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft.