Although I agree with that fact the the article was a bit harsh, I have to say that it's not really about "thinking big" or "small", it's about the result of such mistakes. If a pizza delivery order got messed because of a bug in the web service, the result would be that you won't have any pizza today for example (which is acceptable). But when it comes to software that affects lives, and when it's being advertised in the media (of course with the patronage of the author) as a secure solution, then it's a big problem that could really affect many people. You can't think long or short term in these issues, you have to take the immediate consequences into consideration, you have to shock the users into knowing how bad the problems are. I'm sure the intention for such harshness is not directed towards the author, but in fact towards the community of users relying on this piece of software. Imagine learning that TOR is insecure or compromised for example, that would mean a very hideous end for many activists around the world. I really mean hideous as being persecuted, captured, tortured, and eventually killed. That is something that should be stopped in any way without giving any second thoughts to feelings, or "strong developer environment".
From a technical point of view, nothing could be said about the author, because this is how software is, weather it's proprietary or open source. As many have said before me, the smallest bug could render an amazing software pointless.
Just chiming in with something that I feel strongly about.
Steve only said: "CryptoCat doesn't work as expected". "The creators are incompetent of taking on such task" (which is his opinion that he's entitled to have), and "Here's why it doesn't work".
From a technical point of view, nothing could be said about the author, because this is how software is, weather it's proprietary or open source. As many have said before me, the smallest bug could render an amazing software pointless.
Just chiming in with something that I feel strongly about.