On Tue September 9 2003 01:48, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:42:43AM +0000, Nate Hill wrote:
> > On Mon September 8 2003 21:38, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tue,  9 Sep 2003 06:15:27 +0900 (JST),
> > >
> > > 	itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) said:
> > > > 	as a firm believer of "rough consensus and running code"
> > >
> > > Well, I don't see that there is rough consensus to import BSD
> > > auth as the basic layer of authentication, because many people
> > > pointed out that BSD auth can be implemented over PAM, and PAM
> > > can never be implemented over BSD auth, and also people who
> > > agreed with BSD auth couldn't produce any counterevidence.
> >
> > I beleive there is rough consensus that you're extremely biased,
> > have never once considered, commented on, or even recognized any
> > compromises; and have very little (nothing new either) evidence
> > supporting your crusade.
>
> [...]
>
> > It's called collaberative development for a reason.
>
> Your comments are extremely rude and entirely uncalled-for. 
> Soda-san has made many important contributions to NetBSD in his
> long tenure as a developer.  He is entitled to his opinion, which
> many of the NetBSD developers happen to share.  He also stated that
> opinion concisely and politely -- in dramatic contrast to your
> long, choleric rant.
>
> Collaborative development, eh?  What have you done for me lately?

Look, I have problems with PAM. I won't lie to you about my 
neutrality. The issue here is that his opinion is very narrow-minded. 
I'll agree that his original arguments where not without merit 
however, they quickly became relatively moot and repetitive.

My real objection where his comments related to Itojun's code. It has 
been clearly stated that, both authentication mechanism can co-exist, 
both _could_ be, at least partially, implemented using their 
counterpart and that both would be optional at all times. What I take 
objection to is the statement in which he states that the only thing 
worth of "commitment" is a BSDAuth-over-PAM implementation.  I would 
not object to a pam implementation being maintained and commited as 
long as it follows some simple principles of containment that BSD 
Auth (or any experimental feature) should be expected to.

-- 
Nate Hill <vugdeox@freeshell.org>