Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc Subject: Flamage. "Slime". A plea for quiet, if not peace. (WAS Re: Why no addusr?) Supersedes: <5e97nm$f2@panix2.panix.com> Date: 17 Feb 1997 04:37:02 -0500 Organization: Panix Lines: 231 Message-ID: <5e98ru$r7@panix2.panix.com> References: <none-ya023480001912962244220001@news.infi.net> <1997Feb16.105221@screwem.citi.umich.edu> <5e879l$2dn@panix2.panix.com> <5e8pu5$o0$1@news.iastate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5485 In article <5e8pu5$o0$1@news.iastate.edu>, Phillip F Knaack <flipk@idea.exnet.iastate.edu> wrote: >tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes: > >>I mean, I could say that "peter honeyman blew up a bomb in Centennial Park >>during the Olympics." Then Jason could say that "people who believe Thor's >>Centennial Park claims would hold that the facts are indeed public, and that >>your refutation simply does not exist." It's a "When did you stop beating >>your wife" argument. It's slimy. > > I have run NetBSD for a long time, and have witnessed a great >number of conversations, both useful and idiotic, cross these mailing >lists and newsgroups. I've been amazed at the fervor with which some >people attack other people, and for no solidly identifiable reasons. It amazes me as well. We spend a great deal of effort trying to keep this kind of vitriolic nonsense off our mailing lists and newsgroups. It is rather embarassing and sad when we end up embroiled in it ourselves. Draw whatever conclusion you like from Theo's archive of private email which he is redistributing (and it is clear from later text in your article that you have done so); as someone who was privy to quite a bit of what was going on at that time, and who pretty openly supported Theo on a number of issues, all that I can say is that that archive is pretty selective, and it's extremely incomplete. And as such it's hardly representative of what actually went on. Now, those are my opinions on the matter. Which, I think, I'm entitled to have, just like anyone else. I'm rather sad that it's necessary or even possible for me to have an opinion on the matter at all. Now, Theo's probably going to pop up and ask why someone doesn't "post the rest of it". I'll tell you why not: because we strongly believe that posting private email is not right. Because as a project we believe that certain matters have to be dealt with internally. This was one of them. Everyone involved knew that. It's not possible to obtain consent from everyone who was involved in every aspect of this to go "fill in the holes" in Theo's archive -- one key incident involved a wholly inappropriate discussion of someone else's personal life, for example -- and in any event you just can't win in that kind of game. Nor, of course, can anyone win in _this_ kind of game. People are going to be inclined to believe us, or they're going to be inclined to believe Theo. Whatever preconceptions people come to the discussion with, they may well walk away with. Our principal interests here are simple, and they are twofold: 1) Ensure that in matters of fact, false information about NetBSD does not go uncontradicted. An excellent example of this is honeyman's claim that we had ignored a large number of bug reports from Jim Rees at CITI. peter admitted that this was not the case, but he didn't stop flaming us; he just moved on to other issues. It's hard to see how we could have walked away without addressing his initial issue, or how our wholly factual discussion of that matter was improper or "slimy". Another excellent example of this is the claim, of varying degrees of specificity, that NetBSD contains 4.4-encumbered or other source code which we're not entitled to have, or that we redistribute code which we're not entitled to redistribute. This is *not* the case. In fact, all that *is* the case, of the various wild accusations which were thrown around, is that the agreement between NetBSD and USL is confidential. "Confidential" has a pretty simple meaning: it means that we can't discuss the specifics. But walking away from the allegation that we're violating the law or violating a legal agreement would have been foolhardy at best and suicidal at worst. It's hard to understand how refuting these claims was improper or "slimy" or "dirty". 2) Really, we'd rather not discuss Theo or OpenBSD at all. But we're not a monolithic organization; nor do we throw people out for doing or saying things which we don't like. Of course, members of core are held to a higher standard, but only one member of core has even been involved in this discussion at all, and I don't know how you can describe his conduct as "dirty" or "slimy". In any event, The NetBSD Project's only interest in discussing Theo or OpenBSD, as I understand it (note that I do not speak for the Project in any official capacity), occurs when direct statements about NetBSD are made in NetBSD forums, such as this newsgroup or our mailing lists, or when direct comparisons are drawn, or when our forums are used directly as a promotional vehicle for OpenBSD. Now, some NetBSD developers have strong feelings on some of the issues being discussed. I do, for one, and I probably let my temper get the better of me a number of times in this discussion. That was a mistake. However, the worst of the flamage appears to have been touched off when Curt mentioned that he'd been branded a "traitor" and thrown out of OpenBSD for criticizing Jason Downs in private email. I can understand why Curt would have strong feelings about that; Curt also doesn't speak for The Project, as I don't, but I can't see how Curt's posting could be construed as "dirty" or "slimy". What followed was, of course, regrettable. But I think that cuts both ways. > However, this thread has produced more dirt and slime from >various persons such as yourself and Jason than I have ever seen. I >repeatedly see comments which seem totally unfounded in anything except >pure unadalterated hatred, and as such I am ashamed that I was ever led >to believe that everyone in the NetBSD project were respectable honest >people. I am tempted to ask you to delineate some of that "dirt" and "slime", but I don't think it would serve any real purpose. We've all had enough brawling in the streets. I don't know who ever claimed that "everyone in the NetBSD project is a respectable honest person", or how one could ever think that any such claim is anything but totally subjective. I am confident, personally, that the people I work with on a daily basis as part of the NetBSD project are, in fact, good, respectable, honest people. But that is a wholly subjective, personal decision. I happen to think that it's one which I have very strong grounds for making. I also know (in fact, I spent years studying it) that "good" is one of the slipperiest terms you'll ever find, and that even "good" people make mistakes. We've certainly discussed enough such cases in these past few days. I also know that you can't clearly draw boundaries about "everyone in the NetBSD project". Or "everyone in the OpenBSD project". Or "everyone in the BSD community". All you can really do is talk about specific examples of people's behaviour, guess at what the larger group of people you're talking about is, and try to inductively reason about who is comfortable with/has as a policy/supports which action. And it's pretty easy to make mistakes in that kind of reasoning. It's pretty important to indicate that one is, in fact, reasoning like that; that opinions are opinions, and inferences are inferences. I've certainly spent quite a bit of effort doing so. On the other hand, I personally feel that some of the people on the other side of this fence haven't. In particular, Jason Downs directly placed words in my mouth. I'd call that "dirty" and "slimy". I, personally, would actually call that wholly typical of Jason's conversational style. But that's just my personal opinion. You're free to draw your own conclusions. > I have switched to OpenBSD on most of my machines now, at first >because of the 32M / adaptec 1542 thing. But now, even despite your >"warnings" about reading Theo's coremail archive, I have read it, and have I don't know why you put the word "warnings" in quotes. I indicated my own, personal, ethical concerns about reading that file. I also indicated that the copyrights of the authors of most of that email are likely being trod upon. I don't understand what's wrong with that. I also indicated that reading that file can be quite misleading, because only one of the points of view in that dialogue (actually, it's more than a dialogue) is represented. And that the other parties involved still consider the entire matter to have been in confidence, and are not willing to discuss it in specific, or divulge any further personal correspondence which Theo hasn't. I don't understand what's wrong with that. >yet again witnessed what I had hoped not to see. After reading this I am >proud to use OpenBSD and even contribute, when skills and time permit. >OpenBSD consists of many good people, hard working, intelligent people, >and the rate at which work proceeds on the project astounds me. And yes, >even respectable people, like Theo. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. My personal opinion is that so much effort is expended in publicizing OpenBSD and trying to make the project seem to progress at an astounding rate that it's extremely difficult to draw any such comparison. That's just my personal opinion. And I am, of course, entitled to my own opinion. > Your comments are vague, hurtful, and ignorant. You are nothing >more than an angry man. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. My personal opinion is that I am at least somewhat less ignorant about the matters we're discussing than you are. Certainly, I would say that I have spent more time speaking to all of the parties involved in a number of these matters than you have. That's just my personal opinion. And I am, of course, entitied to my own opinion. > There. If you can dish out the insults, you can take them. Yes, I can take them. I don't actually think that I've been "dishing out the insults"; I've been trying pretty hard to limit myself to commenting on factual matters. But we're both entitled to our own opinions on that as well. > Responses, except good ones, will be directed to /dev/null. I've no notion what you'd accept as a "good one". I've responded as best I've been able; that's all I can do, and all I've ever been able to do. I'm a human being. I've got flaws, weak points, failures of reason or of patience just like anyone else. I can certainly be baited. In fact, I feel that a great deal of effort has been expended in doing exactly that. And I don't understand why. My principal request -- and in this, I think I *do* speak for the project on this subject -- is that Theo and Jason stop inserting discussion of OpenBSD into every thread in this newsgroup. What's wrong with that? As I indicated above, one thing that's likely to be true of this entire discussion is that a lot of people are just going to walk away with the same sentiments they had coming in, except stronger. Life's like that. Some people don't get along. I can cope; can't you? You've picked a side. I've picked a side. I'd like to convince you, but I doubt that I can. Fine. So be it. I don't understand how that somehow makes it wrong for me to correct factual errors, or to express my opinion. If you do, I'd like to hear why. But let's take it offline. Like I said up above, there's been enough brawling in the streets already. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud