intertwingly

Charles Miller: Often, full disclosure is explained as a way to make sure vendors are responsive, using “naming and shaming” to force a faster patch schedule. This is certainly one aspect of the practice, but far more important is the fact that it gives those people who might be running the vulnerable software enough information to make informed decisions about their security. [via Stefan Tilkov]

If you are involved with the development of any tool that consumes feeds, I encourage you to read James Snell’s recent post.  It is clear now that giving people months to react only advantages the wrong people.  So in early September, I plan to create a page on the Atom wiki where users can record how responsive various feed consuming tools are to the tests that James has created.

One thing for sure, FeedDemon will rank highly.