Except for spokesmen employed by various organizations who say what they'reQuote:> The hopes for a meaningful remediation have been pinned to big business
> along. Now it is patently obvious to all but the most intentionally
> that it is futile. To believe in a successful remediation is no more than
> calculated stupidity.
paid to say, I haven't seen anyone say that remediation will be complete. I
haven't even seen anyone claiming that remediation of narrowly
circumscribed critical systems will be complete. It seems that without
question, every large business (and probably every medium-sized business)
will reach critical dates without the code sensitive to those dates having
been completely or correctly repaired.
The question to me is, are complete remediation and successful
remediation synonymous? If any organization would have died if no repairs
had been done, but manages to muddle through because their remediation was
half-finished, could their efforts be considered 'successful' remediation?
It seems at least possible that in an environment where any organization
that can accomplish anything at all can be counted a success, every code
repair is a step toward minimal survival, such as it is. All in all, I'd
rather be crippled than dead. I believe organizations feel the same way.
It sounds like calculated stupidity to say that since we're all going to
die anyway, why bother to make the best of things while we can. With luck,
maybe our best efforts, while falling far short of complete, will be good
enough to make it through another day.