[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ipf



Your comment, Sir, is the most absurd one I have read in this thread.

Simply put, facts and lessons from this incident are:
- Any software with no explicit permissions for modifications, change,
and re-distribution should never be integrated in OBSD in the first
place, no matter how good and popular they are.  DJB stuff is another
example.
- Show time for "secure by default" implementation.
- Time to kill the wide-spread and often-ill-intended idea of OpenBSD
being a free firewall, rather than a fully-fledged, top-notch,
high-quality OS.
- illustration of the effect of "usage habbit breeds taken-for-granted
attitude" by using software benevolently integrated into OBSD.

In anology to your statements, a lot more people have been "abusing"
OpenBSD code and giving very little back.  Does that make OpenBSD team
change their initial promise and commitment?  They did not start this
project and produce a quality free OS just to drug people into their
paid-per-view "show me the money" new versions.  You are way far from
home.  Here is a different bunch.
=============

On Wed, 30 May 2001 15:18:28 -0500
John Vernier Simon <john.simon@central.sun.com> wrote:

> I think Theo isn't being really cool about this one, I think the term "pissing
> contest" describes the situation. Oh well, I am saddened to see Darren's IPF
> source removed from the OpenBSD tree. I can understand Darren's point of view,
> a lot of people seem to be abusing his code and giving very LITTLE back. Oh
> well the few spoil the cream for the many. Hopefully everyone will come to
> their senses and Theo will put the source back, as IPF was a really big chunk
> of OpenBSD's great security.
> 
> John
> 
> Tony Lambiris wrote: