Subject: Re: ipf's future
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bob Bernstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/29/2001 00:49:27
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:43:06PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> I'm glad that NetBSD is staying with IPF, it's stable and it works.
Is NetBSD staying with IPF? Has anyone heard word one to that effect?
That, and not the character flaws of OpenBSD developers, is the
question that has been raised in this thread.
As for feeling sorry for Darren Reed, I do feel sorry for him, not
because he is Theo's victim (which is adolescent nonsense: "Look what
he made me do."), but because he puts his foot in his mouth every time
he opens it in public. If he cares one wit for the goals that propel
NetBSD, he has managed to conceal that from public view.
Clearly, it's not a stretch to conclude that the time for private,
behind the scenes negotiations with Mr. Reed has probably run out. If
they haven't succeeded by now, it's doubtful they ever will. If they
have succeeded, then why has that fact not been communicated to the
community of NetBSD users? As has been pointed out, there is no
evident change in the source code.
So my suggestion continues to be: make nice with the pf bunch. There's
no way ipf can stay in the NetBSD source code tree. Not without deep
sixing the project's goals. Why dance around the obvious? Let's get on
I realize folks are going to be upset with these reflections, but how
long are we supposed to tip-toe around so as not to disturb the
elephant in the living room?