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.