*BSD News Article 89399


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!europa.clark.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet
From: ghudson@mit.edu (Greg Hudson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD hides security fixes (and blindly integrates code)
Date: 17 Feb 1997 02:34:31 -0500
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 26
Sender: ghudson@the-light-fantastic.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <x7dzpx3nawo.fsf@the-light-fantastic.MIT.EDU>
References: <none-ya023480001912962244220001@news.infi.net>
	<DERAADT.97Feb15212032@zeus.pacifier.com>
	<5e69v0$1u4@news.bayarea.net>
	<DERAADT.97Feb16012623@zeus.pacifier.com>
	<5e6mjn$q3n@panix2.panix.com>
	<1997Feb16.110100@screwem.citi.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: the-light-fantastic.mit.edu
In-reply-to: honey@citi.umich.edu's message of Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:01:00 EST
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5418

> i am waiting to hear someone from the netbsd camp "fess up" to this
> obvious, transparent attempt to sabotage openbsd.

The change in question was made by Chris Demetriou, as has been
mentioned previously.  It was almost certainly a dumb thing to do, but
I doubt the act of "sabotage" did any lasting damage.  It was a
prank.  Sure, it says that Chris has bad judgment.  Sure, it says that
OpenBSD integrates unreviewed code changes, which has possible
security implications if you believe you should never trust the
authors of a piece of code.  Acknowledge and move on.

As an observer (I haven't used icb much lately) who generally
sympathizes with NetBSD, I will freely state for those keeping score
that the NetBSD camp is getting its collective tail kicked in this
flame war.  But both sides are being ridiculous.  I know we all don't
like each other, and we all think we have good reasons, but do we have
to resort to rhetoric about "sabotage"?  Do we have to resort to
repetitive, smarmy statements about people discrediting themselves?
When you deliberately misinterpret someone's statements in order to
create a point of conflict, when you repeat yourself over and over
again, when you fail to acknowledge or admit facts which might be of
use against your case, all you do is make yourself look childish.

Make your case, using facts checked as carefully as possible, and move
on.  These pot shots may be great fun, but they probably irritate the
users.