I heard our CEO mention at our conference (BugBash) something along the lines of "If you're maintaining a critical open source project and want to work with us then shoot us an email ([email protected]) and we'll probably be able to work something out." Empirically I've found that to be true.
I think whats really strong about this blog post reading it is the memorable message, ie if im talking about marketing and lead gen, then im probably going to recall this post about 'marketing isnt just about lead-gen' and be able to pull it up from that alone, nicely done.
Reminds me in a way of Dan Abramov's once- internal post series titled 'you might not need useeffect'.
(disclaimer I work at Antithesis, but read this post and was about to share this internally and figured I'd be more public)
Yeah it's fun that we get to do this at the hypervisor level. This opens up time-traveling in systems where there's cross-machine or inter-process communication, which really widens what we're able to do.
(I work at Antithesis, if youre interested in chatting more once this thread has gone cold come join discord.gg/antithesis)
I think you're right that the framing leans towards providing value in prod issues, but we left out how we provide value there. I think you're also right that we're just used to experiencing the value here, but it needs some explanation.
Basically this is where guided, tree-based fuzzing comes in. If something in the real world is caused by very specific circumstances, we're well positions to have also generated those specific circumstances. This is thanks to parallelism, intelligent exploration, fault injection, our ability to revisit interesting states in the past with fast snapshots, etc.
We've had some super notable instances of a customer finds a bug in prod, recalls its that weird bug they've been ignoring that we surfaced a month ago, and then uses this approach to debug.