[Development] RFC: Qt Security Policy

d3fault d3faultdotxbe at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 16:55:52 CEST 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:08 AM, André Somers <andre at familiesomers.nl> wrote:
>You may not agree with the decision
> taken, but the grown-up thing to do is to accept that and move on.

Tell that to the Jews who were forced to go to the holocaust.

>Please focus your energy on more productive ventures.

...so you're saying discussing/modifying/improving Qt's security
policies isn't productive? Interesting.

I find it hilarious that, despite me being the immature baby at times
(admittedly), everybody else (the 'mature grown-ups') attack my
persons instead of my arguments. I'm consistently surprised at how
illogical programmers can be (considering programming is logic...).

Welcome to Qt: The community where if you suggest something FIRST,
your opinions are written in stone and irreversible. If I would have
started this thread instead and offered up the suggestions, due to a
lack of disagreement I would have gotten consensus. Sounds pretty
stupid to me.

Anybody want to respond telling me why they think full disclosure is
worse than behind closed doors security? You know, instead of telling
me something I already know (that I'm a baby/immature/etc zzzz).


More information about the Development mailing list