Give the guy a break, he clearly does now how to code, he writes well crafted blog entries in which he humbly explains some of the mistake's he's made for the benefit of others. If he's being voted up in news aggregator then a lot of people must appreciate what he's doing. Why is that so bad?

I'm a fan of his and I think a lot of what he writes about is pretty poor. I don't mind because he is a good writer and he doesn't pretend to be an expert about most of what he writes about. I do mind that he thinks it's not important a lot of the time. I can't fault his record though, he's a successful in his field, and his latest ventures have been really wonderful. I disagree on his views (I don't know C well but I understand why you might want to learn it Jeff!) and I don't think we should see every article of his here, but he's hardly the worst pundit out there.

It's annoying because it's been going on for a long time now, and he hasn't seemed to have taken a break to really bring himself up to speed despite having been shown, repeatedly, to have a need for it.

Comments like this are why I cannot wait to be able to mod down. Back on topic...

I found this article interesting even though I've never needed to use encryption explicitly in .NET. I did study crypto in Java, but only briefly whilst in college and we barely touched on ECB. I probably would have made the same mistake and never been the wiser.

Thanks Jeff!

[Edit: Wow, first 0 karma comment in a long time. Must have hit a nerve. My original, and continuing stance on Atwood: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=510526]

In this case I have to agree with you. I'm a little dumb founded as to what exactly was the point of the article:

was it:

1. Don't use ECB (use CBC instead ?)

or

2. Only send data out if you have to (with no mention of the fix to using ECB)

I'm so confused

It was 2. The exact bug that exposed the data wasn't really the point, since he assumes that everyone will eventually make some similarly awful mistake; the point was that you should design things in such a way that when you discover your boneheaded mistake(s), the damage is less than it could be. I agree, though, that his habit of using particularly boneheaded mistakes as examples dilutes his main point, since a significant part of his intended audience will think, "Wow, I'd never make a mistake like that, so I don't have to pay attention to mitigating my mistakes like he does."