[issati]

I don't use CloudFlare nor have any interest in them, but I don't see the arrogance. The issues CloudFlare have are things everyone takes seriously and are working very hard on. Deployment and memory safety are hard problems that happens to the best of the best. It happens Google, Amazon and Facebook. If anything the idea that this would damaging, because it is more public, is arrogant. If CloudFlare would be saying that everything is fine you might have a point, but they aren't. Just like the other companies mentioned they seem to be improving their routines, programming and infrastructure to try and mitigate these problems.

What they are criticising however are things like not adopting new protocols or not taking things that affects everyone seriously. This isn't something that would happen if people were trying. And the response from some of the industry is "we know what we are doing", and shortly after the same thing happens again and again and again.

So I don't really see CloudFlare being that arrogant, if anything it's the "you are not better than us" from some parts of the industry that is. The day I see CloudFlare not trying I would be happy calling them arrogant. But if anything I would caution that they are too successful by trying more than most.

[tgragnato]

> The issues CloudFlare have are things everyone takes seriously and are working very hard on. Deployment and memory safety are hard problems that happens to the best of the best.

Cloudflare improved a lot. You can see just from what they're open sourcing that the usage of go and rust increased significantly. And I'm sure we'll notice improvements in deployment practices.

When Cloudbleed happened I was very vocal and skeptical, but this is different. Everyone makes mistakes.

[cookiecaper]

> Cloudflare improved a lot. You can see just from what they're open sourcing that the usage of go and rust increased significantly.

You say this like using trendy languages implicitly indicates improvement.