Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.cis.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!not-for-mail From: jmc@ksu.ksu.edu (James M. Chacon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: followup from censored port-i386@Netbsd.ORG Date: 23 Jun 1996 15:46:26 -0500 Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 84 Message-ID: <4qkaf2$oa4@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> References: <DERAADT.96Jun23070919@zeus.theos.com> <x7dk9wytkmo.fsf@glacier.MIT.EDU> <DERAADT.96Jun23134409@zeus.theos.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: fox.ksu.ksu.edu X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3822 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:21979 deraadt@theos.com (Theo de Raadt) writes: >In article <x7dk9wytkmo.fsf@glacier.MIT.EDU> ghudson@glacier.mit.edu (Greg Hudson) writes: > As for the history of the split between NetBSD and OpenBSD, not > everyone who's read Theo's mail archive has come to the same > conclusion that he has. >Did they read the version modified by someone who cracked my machine, or >the un-hacked version? Of course...Everyone else can produce the email as well, so I'll just claim someone hacked my machine months ago and changed it.....I'm sure everyone who's dealt with you at all surely beleives this...Yeah right. > John Goerzen's message did not trigger the moderation filter, or it > probably would not have been approved. >John's message did contain the word "prick". It would have activate the >filter, just as the message he replied to did. Now you might say... perhaps >my previous one which also contained the word "prick" did not.... but, looking >at my archives: >My original message did bounce, but Jason let it through. Then he also let >through John's message which flamed me. So, John's message DID trigger >the moderation filter, and they DID let it through. >> Jason did not wind up >> approving any of the recent bounces that triggered the moderation >> filter. >Yes, he did. >> port-i386 is intended for technical discussion of the i386 >> port, not for political discussion. One may or may not believe that >> it's Jason's responsibility to let people reply to flames that make it >> past the moderation filter. >But he did let a flame against me through, and then silently remove a >piece of mail that redeems OpenBSD and my behaviour. And that of course relates to technical dicussions of x86 ports on NetBSD? Of course I see. Once a thread's been started we must let it continue through to it's end. If you'd replied with your typical flaming replies and it got let through but everything past it was moderated you of course wouldn't be complaining like this.. > > Why should I help a project that flames OpenBSD developers > > regularily? A few days ago Herb said to one of the OpenBSD > > developers: > > "And to think I thought you were older than that... I guess Theo > > has done us all a favor... He's collecting all the assholes in one > > little pot... run along little man..." > Herb Peyerl does not speak for the NetBSD project. Such messages can > and do generate bad blood, but I think it's unfair to use them as > evidence against the core team without at least pointing that out. >There are similar comments from NetBSD core people; anyone want to show >some of them? You're more than free to produce them. Should I dig out your regular abusive/deragatory email you sent while you were a NetBSD core member? I remember a fair amount of it. Somehow the words "pot, kettle, black" all come to mind here. > > I want to point out that 3 of 4 founders of NetBSD are not on NetBSD > > core anymore because of the politics. > Lest anyone believe they were expelled, Adam Glass and Chris Demetriou > left core of their own accord. To the best of anyone's knowledge I > know about, Adam left because he lost interest, not because of > politics. Chris is still the Alpha port maintainer and contributes > frequently. It's also a little peculiar to refer to "the politics," > because the political issues at hand were quite different between > Chris's case and yours. >Yes, well I have mail from Chris in which he roughly says that he quit >because the politics over Charles. But, no that's not the issue here. No, but of course you felt obligated to bring this up anyways. Can resist from fanning any flames, huh? James Chacon