Y'know, I don't agree with you in general, and you did put this in general terms.

But this is frakkin sudo we're talking about.

It's a wonder that anything works, ever.

Yeah, this goes back to the whole "Open Source and corporate funding" story. As far as I can find, sudo doesn't get any direct funding at the moment, although various companies have undoubtedly contributed patches.

It’s nice when those with differing viewpoints can find common ground over their profound disappointment with the world (or at least their profession).

Reading the code of important open source projects is not for the faint hearted!

From https://www.sudo.ws/license.html

> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

If you don't like this license, you're free to use other software.

What’s that got to do with what I wrote?

Nothing, as far as I can see. If someone writes some crappy security software and hides behind a licence that only means those relying on it have joined them in being irresponsible. Responsibility multiplies, it’s not zero-sum.

Parent's comment has got everything to do with yours: you are feeling like the software somehow owes you to be merchandable and fit , while the software's license explicitely rejects ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS .

There is a large disconnect here.

> Writing code, without tests, that others use (and for security at that) is irresponsible.

You can choose to run this code, or you can choose not to run this code. It's really up to you.

This is very different from a sealbelt, as I can't choose to not have an accident with you, potentially causing a needless fatality.

> This is very different from a seatbelt

You can choose to wear this seatbelt, or you can choose not to wear this seatbelt. It's really up to you.

This code is advertised as a security tool, is it not? The only reason anyone runs sudo is because it (supposedly) improves their security. I think some responsibility comes with that.

I don't use sudo to improve my security; I use sudo because it's what I've become familiar with.

I don't want to come across as pedantic - the point I mean to make is that I think a lot of people use sudo without thinking about it much. Sudo's just "the way to use linux" for a lot of people I know.

I don't think the sudo contributors should be labelled as irresponsible, because everything they've added to the project is available for the public to see and scrutinise. I don't think they've ever mislead people; rather that people have assumed things.

Maybe people who care about security will notice now that sudo doesn't have comprehensive testing, and will make their own alternative.

So people should be obliged to spend more of their free time?

I know this is not exactly what you're trying to say, but it is what it comes down to.

If they don’t like using their free time to write code they don’t have to, it’s free time not work.

So, what it actually comes down to is that they didn’t bother to write tests. There was no time pressure, there was no urgency or requirement, they just couldn’t be bothered to do that prior to release. If there’s a note somewhere saying “I know it’s not quite done...” then I’ll let it slide.

Have you seen something along those lines?

> So, what it actually comes down to is that they didn’t bother to write tests. There was no time pressure, there was no urgency or requirement, they just couldn’t be bothered to do that prior to release.

Kindly go to the source repository.

> If there’s a note somewhere saying “I know it’s not quite done...” then I’ll let it slide. Have you seen something along those lines?

That's what a TODO file is for. There is one you can browse to here: https://www.sudo.ws/repos/sudo/file/tip/TODO

There is also literally a dozen lines in the LICENSE file saying that the software is not quite production ready (THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS") and should not be relied upon (THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS).

It's all spelled black on white, not sure what you would want more from the author?

From the comment I originally replied to:

> people can do in their spare time whatever they want, including writing code without tests

I did not refer to the Sudo project at all, so you might want to redirect your post to someone who did.

Hmm. Maybe we shouldn't let unlicensed hobbyists expose their software to the internet - plenty of other things are too dangerous for unlicensed hobbyists to do. Though frankly the standard of commercial code is no better at the moment.

That's fine, existing software comes first, decent software comes second, sudo is the former. That said, it's a good candidate for riir (safety, right?), but riir happened to grep instead.