Subject: Re: ipf's future
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 06/28/2001 22:43:06
As sad as it is, I really have to agree with Thor. He is absolutely right.
When I read firstname.lastname@example.org the other day, I was surprised by the number
of developers putting down [openbsd]users who were questioning pf's
stability and such; they were basicly telling them "we don't care what you
think, in 2 months this is going to be the best packet filter in the open
source world, now shut up and go away, we dont need your advice" and using
openssh as an example. That really is trolling! And I also find it very
unfair towards darren, who has spent so much time on IPF, trying to make it
compile on all these platforms, without breaking the code. I'm glad that
NetBSD is staying with IPF, it's stable and it works.
Another thing, why should NetBSD contribute/endorse to this project? What
makes you think that the OpenBSD'ers would even let such a thing happen?
The way I see it, the developers don't want user input, so why would they
want input from another BSD project...Why contribute to a project that
isn't thankful at all, and returns advice with flames?
Anyway, just my $0.02, I'm staying with NetBSD on this :-)
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 08:52:25PM -0400, Bob Bernstein wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:15:42PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>> > Not just talking about it. But it is already happening.
>> > "pf is now developed in the OpenBSD CVS tree (-current)"
>> > http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf.html
>> Yes, and the collective coding talent being brought to bear on the
>> project is impressive. Very impressive. There is no reason to think
>> that this effort will not be as successful as the OpenSSH project.
>> > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/basesrc/dist/ipf/LICENCE hasn't
>> > changed in a while.
>> NetBSD should endorse and/or support and/or contribute to this
>> project. Now. Not later. Now. Or explain why not...
> OpenBSD trollers should stop wasting everybody's time on the mailing
> lists of other projects. Now. Not later. Now. Or explain why not...
> I think we've rehashed this issue more than enough. Whining that
> you didn't see an answer that satisfied *you* doesn't really count as a
> worthwhile use of everyone's bandwidth. The fact that OpenBSD's
> principals have managed to antagonize Yet Another open-source
> project should be news to nobody; neither should the fact that
> their abusive, disruptive behaviour towards anyone who refuses to
>sing their favorite tune (in this case, refusing to change the
> license on an *unreleased, non-public, beta* version of ipf) has
> greatly inconvenienced them. You will note that NetBSD does *not*
> distribute such a version of ipf, because we are polite and take
> the trouble to coordinate with ipf's author.