Subject: Re: Organizational Changes to the NetBSD Project
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johan A.van Zanten <email@example.com>
Date: 09/01/2006 17:53:56
Quentin Garnier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You've been saying the same stuff for way too long. You sound like a
> broken record. If it was fraudulent (I can't tell, I wasn't anywhere
> near NetBSD at that time), why don't you sue? Isn't it what you
> americans do? What's the point of whining again and again like you
> have been doing the past two years?
> You sure like posing as a victim, and obviously crying won't take you
> anywhere at this point. The timing of your previous overzealously
> public rant doesn't do you justice when you've been more or less
> repeating the same stuff to the developers for a while.
I've been on netbsd-users and netbsd-announce since about Feb of
2002. Maybe i live under a rock, but Hannum's original message from two
days ago was the first i've heard of this TNF "fraud" issue. It seems
from people's reactions that this is the first time others have heard
about it, too. I have noticed a few things which seem to support some of
the technical criticism he made.
Maybe some of the developers have heard about it plenty and are tired of
it, and few people like having their dirty laundry aired in public. But
hopefully you can understand that the political functionings of this
project matter to end users; users have choices of which open-source OS to
run, and we even have choices of BSDs. The health, stability, and
probable future of projects affect our choice.
Within this context, your response looks really bad. It looks very much
like you are just trying to shut down the discussion. What Hannum is
saying may be right, wrong, or both. I don't know this history, so
content-ful discussion is important for me to get a handle on the
situation. I'm glad most TNF and TNP people are taking the time to
address Hannum's points.
IMO, the "shut up and stop whining" responses don't add anything to the
discussion, and lower the speaker's credibility. When it comes from a
member of the Foundation, it reflects badly on the Foundation.