Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:26:55 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@mt.sri.com, dg@root.com, darrend@novell.com, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux 96 (my impressions) - Reply Message-ID: <199609042026.NAA07250@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609041910.NAA01549@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 4, 96 01:10:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Theo's current statement > I've fixed a *huge* security bug, but I'm not telling you what it is: > > vs. > I've fixed a *huge* security bug in rdist. > Or > I've fixed a *huge* security hole in the kernel involving the setuid() > function call. > > Remember what you've fixed in *NOT* that hard, and since he went to the > trouble to check if FreeBSD had the fix, it's evidently more of a 'nyah, > nyah, I've got a fix that you don't' attitude then one of "I'm > overworked and don't remember." Actually, I think it's more like "I've pulled in all the FreeBSD and NetBSD fixes, and this wasn't one of them". I think this is different than the childish attitude you ascribe him; you have to admit that you are paraphrasing. The problem (for him) with making specific statements (like your "rdist" and "setuid" examples) is that he then has to defend his position that a fix was necessary... in other words, he has to explain his actions to an outside authority who won't give him credit for knowing what he is doing. I've been involved in these exchanges, where it gets down to "show your credentials" or "prove that this modes us in the direction we want to go", or, more frequently, "prove that the direction this moves us in is the direction we want to go". It is much easier to simply note the fix, note that he's alreay received the most benefit he can get from it by integrating it into his tree, and move on. Again, Theo is not at fault for providing incomplete information, since he was not obligated to provide *any* information. Neither is he obligated to defend himself over the question of his technical ability. And yes, I'm well aware that Theo was one of the two main NetBSD personalities whose conflicts caused the merge talks to fall through; then, as now, it's his technical ability, not his merits as a human being, which are in question. It's very easy to see the perspective he's coming from when he puts out his "security bugs" statements; the problem is that he's not being taken at face value because of all the historical baggage. That's an observer problem -- you, as an observer, can either let your history with Theo own you, or you can own your history, and utilize his statements for what value they have to you, without the emotional loading that comes from past interactions. You don't *have* to like him to benefit from his work. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609042026.NAA07250>