That's a No True Scotsman argument. The problem with the "many eyes bugs shallow" theory is that all eyes aren't created equally, and the valuable eyes aren't distributed uniformly across all software.
It would only be a No-True-Scotsman argument if the original statement of Linus' Law were, "In an open-source project, all bugs are shallow" and someone were now trying to claim that GnuTLS wasn't open-sourcey enough.
In reality, the law is about code that has many eyeballs on it, and it's a fair argument to point out that evidence suggests GnuTLS didn't have that many eyeballs on it.
Can you present some of that evidence about the lack of eyeballs on GnuTLS? Because my point is that the right kind of eyeballs were not on GnuTLS; my point isn't compatible with this supposed "law".
So are you saying that GnuTLS had "valuable eyes" and missed this or that they had "many eyes" and missed this? What exactly is your alternate hypothesis?
So do you mean that (until now) they just failed to find them, or that (until now) they were only found by people who did not have the incentive to report these bugs?
Because in the top post you call the bug "simple and basic".
But then in that same top post you imply (in your last line) that GnuTLS gets so very little attention, but now you say that lots of people have tried to find bugs in it.
I'm not trying to criticize you here, but trying to figure out what you're trying to say?
