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!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!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: Re: Why no addusr? Date: 17 Feb 1997 04:09:10 -0500 Organization: Panix Lines: 57 Message-ID: <5e977m$80@panix2.panix.com> References: <none-ya023480001912962244220001@news.infi.net> <1997Feb16.104106@screwem.citi.umich.edu> <5e8v8r$ca2@camel5.mindspring.com> <DERAADT.97Feb17013838@zeus.pacifier.com> Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5484 In article <DERAADT.97Feb17013838@zeus.pacifier.com>, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@theos.com> wrote: > >I certainly hope noone from the NetBSD group is saying they're >ignoring problems reported via other channels. But the fervor with >which they attacking the Peter and the CITI people makes one wonder. I find this characterization of our behaviour vis-a-vis peter fascinating. I hardly find it accurate. peter claimed that bug reports had been filed, and that we had ignored them. We were quite worried by this, and searched our entire bug-report database for any bug report which could possibly have come from peter, Jim, or in fact anyone else at UMich at all. We didn't find anything. Jason then searched the archive of email sent to 'core'. Another miss. Jason and Curt both posted indicating this, and peter responded by insisting that Jim Rees had filed bug reports. It turned out that this was not the case. peter, in fact, admitted this. I didn't see any "attacks" on peter or the CITI people in there anywhere -- just disagreement with the *substance* of what they were saying. Disagreement which turned out to be correct. Now, peter did send me some fairly vituperative email, which did contain a personal attack. And I sent some back. peter apologized for this in private, and I'm apologizing to peter for my side of it in public. Neither of us feel that this is really our style. But it's also not something which was part of the discussion that took place in the newsgroup, or something, in fact, which you could possibly have knowledge of. These are the reasons why I find your characterization of our behaviour vis-a-vis peter and the other CITI people fascinating. And hardly accurate. >I don't see why people are blaming Jim Rees for reporting problems in >the wrong places. Strikes me as a very small issue. I don't see anyone "blaming" Jim for that. It was indicated that he had done so, and that indication was in fact correct, as peter confirmed. It is a pretty small issue, isn't it? In fact, the entire substance of the issue is that peter posted an incorrect assertion, and we corrected him, and he made the assertion again, and we corrected him again, and he agreed with us. This is another reason why I find your characterization of our behaviour vis-a-vis peter and the other CITI people fascinating. And hardly accurate. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.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