"Incompetence" of this degree is malice. It is actively malicious to create a system that automatically locks people out of their accounts with absolutely no possibility for human review or recourse short of getting traction in the media. "No sir, I didn't grind those orphans up. It was this orphan grinding machine I made that did it, teehee!"
incompetence is always more likely than [intentional, directed] malice.
microsoft employees did not deliberately attack the wireguard project with a goal of taking it down for whatever grand scheme people's hatred cooks up. if you have evidence that microsoft did this deliberately to ruin the wireguard project, please forward it along to jason (the wireguard maintainer) and several news outlets.
sure.
but this was not a deliberate attack by microsoft employees to shutdown wireguard. that is what i was trying to say and the essence of the quote in question.
its, like, the only thing worth pointing out. if microsoft is deliberately targeting projects and literally attacking them, that would be huge fucking news. like crazy news. lawsuits galore.
Correct in cases like this we are discussing it as a meaningless distinction.
A certain level of recklessness is automatically malice.
in that case, it certainly wouldnt be called a deliberate attack, right?
the edit in my original comment should hopefully clear up any confusion of my intended point. and, well... the comment you replied to should also make it clear that my entire point is centered around something being deliberate attack vs. ridiculous incompetence.
the deliberateness of it is the entirety of the reason i wrote my comment. choosing the phrase "malice vs. incompetence" was a poor choice on my part, when i should have been extremely explicit. it would have avoided all of this back-and-forth.
The saying implies that incompetence and malice are polar opposites. They're not.
it does not
i get that everyone has a frothing-at-the-mouth extreme hatred to microsoft and its employees. but microsoft did not say "fuck jason, fuck wireguard, lets try and shut that down". that would be a way different story.
i think people are reading my comment as some sort of defense of microsoft. its not.
all i wanted to emphasize was that this incident, while obviously ridiculous, did not come about because a bunch of microsoft employees sat in a cigar-smoke filled room saying "lets destroy wireguard".
my point was that it wasnt a deliberate conspiracy/attack to fuck over wireguard, which would be an absolutely crazy story if it were true.
1. Microsoft have negligently and/or maliciously created a process which fucks people over
2. That maliciousness is not directed at Wireguard or VeraCrypt.
For example by creating working processes which never end up "accidentally" causing awful outcomes. This is sometimes more expensive, but we should ensure that the resulting lack of goodwill if you don't is unaffordable.
Worst case there is malice and you've now made it more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things easier for those who remain committed to looking for malice, including criminal prosecutors.
i am quoting the maintainer of the project. take it up with them if you think microsoft coordinated a directed attack on their project.
It's really easy to end up with procedural machinery that makes it unpleasant for other entities that you don't like.
It seems to get the things that you do like and value less often. Why? Because you think about the consequences to what you consider important and you're inclined to ignore potential consequences to those you oppose or are competing with.
The Vogons weren't necessarily overtly malicious when they obliterated Earth.
Regardless of what the maintainer says of their abuser after being abused, the point I think you are getting stuck on is this:
Creating a system which locks you out if you don't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious.
Having support where you can't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious, either.
Doing both at the same time, however, is de-facto malicious. Some executives likely got bonuses for doing it, too.
i interpreted that as you saying i am the hostage of microsoft, and have stockholm syndrome, therefor am speaking well of (defending) microsoft.
if i misinterpreted that, my bad. are you calling jason the hostage?
This isn't a tee-hee accident, this is deliberate organizational design which removed any kind of bad consequences or even thought about what the software does to user from the engineers at Microsoft. They're happy about that. They now don't need to deal with that. And if you'll ask them, they will refuse a change that will make them responsible for abuse of their users.
So, to hell with them :)
i am in no way defending microsoft. just pointing out that the conspiracy-theorists suggesting that some exec at microsoft specifically targeted wireguard for whatever nefarious purpose was, well, a conspiracy.
It's kind of bizarre how y'all pretend that systematic bearocratic evil doesn't exist. After being brainwashed about its evils in USSR for your young live.