Others may cite that the previous example of a security company dealing with a large unix vendor had little affect in the long run. That even faced with a security company threatening public release of vulnerability information, they reverted to delayed response and little public concern. The flaw in this argument is that the security company gave in to the desires of the vendor and followed their recommendations for release dates. This is further backed by the fact that the vendor provided patch and advisory within days of the information being released by a third party. While this is not definitive proof, it certainly weighs heavy on the fact that some companies policy of firm dates on full disclosure is a good thing.
Full disclosure is in and of itself a means to an end.
Many people participate in it not out of malice, but out of the hope that with enough public scrutiny vendors will finally take responsibility for the software they write. Make no mistake about it, full disclosure is ugly. People get hurt, however, I see no reasonable alternative. In a perfect world vendors would perform rigorous security audits, previous to market release. Some people get the impression we are full disclosure extremist.