From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:44:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA26141 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA26117 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA01549; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:10:03 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:10:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199609041910.NAA01549@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), dg@root.com, darrend@novell.com, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux 96 (my impressions) - Reply In-Reply-To: <199609041905.MAA07109@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199609041735.LAA00851@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199609041905.MAA07109@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > The point is that it is wrong to fault Theo for not taking on the task > of putting it in a form suitable to pass the NetBSD and FreeBSD "not > invented here" rejection filters. 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." Nate