Another look at response times [LWN.net]

Another look at response times

Posted Sep 22, 2005 15:52 UTC (Thu) by zooko (guest, #2589)
Parent article: Another look at response times

Tables should come with a label telling what the values in the table are. In this case I'm guessing it is "days between (public announcement of) vulnerability and fix". Is that right?

to post comments

Another look at response times

Posted Sep 23, 2005 14:22 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, it is "days", but IDR from the original article exactly how they are
measured. Of course, the original article is linked, but one shouldn't
have to look to it to find the missing info.

I agree with you, the table should be labeled. LWN usually does a pretty
good job at that sort of thing, but, perhaps due to the followup nature of
this article, usual thorough proofing may not have been applied.

I've seen Corbet respond in similar instances that while such comments are
appreciated, they'll often get faster action if mailed. IIRC, the address
suggested to mail them to is the general lwn at lwn dot net address, as
listed under the contact faq. The faq mentions that "somebody is always
watching" that address in any case, so it'd be the best for correction
type notes, I'd guess.

I'll mail a request for a label to it as soon as I post this.

Duncan

Another look at response times

Posted Sep 24, 2005 14:01 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

.. And they copied the necessary description from the previous article,
fixing the issue, as I had hoped.

=8^)

Duncan