Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Why you shouldn't run NetBSD

 [comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc elided from newsgroups line, per Jordan's
 It's very unfortunate that you chose to forge approval of your post to
 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.announce.  Regardless of whether you are right or
 wrong, what you've done is an abuse of Usenet and is not acceptable.
 It's especially unfortunate, though, because your post contains many
 inaccuracies, which you would know if you'd been following the
 discussion.  I do not believe in continuing to violate the charter of
 a discussion group in order to correct the inaccuracies of someone
 else who chose to do so, but it's really quite a shame.
 It would be well within Chris's rights to cancel this article.  If he
 does so, I sincerely hope you will choose to repost the article on
 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc only.  You're not helping your case at all
 by forcing your way onto a moderated newsgroup.
 In article <4qssjs$>, (Jason Downs) writes:
 > [...] and booted him out of the project.  Regardless of the fact
 > that he did nothing that other members of the sacred NetBSD Core
 > Team haven't done countless times.
 This claim is, at the very least, unsubstantiated.  It was certainly
 not the opinion of the core team when the decision was made.
 > At any rate, he moved on to other things, figured some things out,
 > etc.  Eventually, he wanted to share the code he'd developed in the
 > mean time with the rest of NetBSD-- something which required he be
 > given CVS access to the tree back.
 By no means did that require that he be given CVS access back.  It
 might have saved the existing NetBSD developers some effort if he were
 able to commit the changes himself, but the only reason it "required"
 CVS access was that he refused to release his code without being given
 CVS access (until he started OpenBSD, of course).
 > Recently, various people began to criticize NetBSD on some of the
 > NetBSD mailing lists.  This included Theo, who decided that he was
 > not going to provide a list of the security holes that he had fixed
 > in OpenBSD.  For this he was flamed, and when he attempted to defend
 > himself and OpenBSD, his posts were not only censored, but he was
 > summarily removed from *all* NetBSD lists (not just those, for
 > example, which carry discussion), and prevented from resubscribing.
 All of the posts in that conversation were censored (because they were
 off-charter) except for Theo's original claim that he had fixed twenty
 security holes in NetBSD.  You'd know this if you had followed the
 discussion on comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc.
 > This could be nothing more then the petty action of someone's
 > personal vendetta against Theo de Raadt, since no one else was
 > removed from the lists for participating in the discussion was was
 > booted for.
 Theo's latest outburst was merely the last straw.  Theo was kicked off
 the mailing lists because at that point he had a history of taking
 various NetBSD mailing lists off-charter.  He was quite severely
 reducing the signal:noise ratio on the NetBSD lists.
 You've done a some of the same yourself; if you continue to do so, you
 will no doubt be barred from the NetBSD mailing lists as well.  This
 is well within the rights of the list maintainers.
 > I should think that it's pretty clear that NetBSD is more interested
 > in politics and propogating a vendetta against Theo de Raadt and
 > anything he's involved in then in managing the development of an
 > operating system.
 On the contrary; you and Theo seem quite interested in creating and
 perpetuating politics.  The NetBSD core team is not, as demonstrated
 by their lack of participation in this debate.  A few people in the
 NetBSD camp have gotten involved in this flame war (myself included),