On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 02:32:31PM -0400, William Allen Simpson drooled:
> Thor Lancelot Simon rants:
> > 
> > Since you don't actually use the machine in question, you can't actually
> > have any rational basis for any statement whatsoever about whether a given
> > security fix has been applied, right?  I'm just checking, because it really
> > sounds to me like you're spreading FUD.
> > 
> As previously described, I'm basing my question entirely on the observed 
> "NetBSD-1.6A-i386".  This has always changed for me whenever I updated 
> the kernel.  That seemed a "rational basis" -- but then, the operators 
> could very well have faked the information.  

No "fakery" is required: if you don't change the source file that has
the kernel revision in it, the reported kernel revision doesn't change,
curiously enough.  And, of course, changes to the rest of the source
tree don't change the kernel revision, either.

> Pray tell, *DID* releng fake the information?
> 
> (You don't seem to be listed at http://netbsd.org/People/groups/#releng)

Bill,

I know you're plenty well-informed, and plenty intelligent, to be able to
reach the rational conclusion that you don't -- and can't, unless someone
who _is_ able to log into the machine in question helps you, which we both
know nobody has -- have any rational basis for some of the wild claims 
you're making.  Perhbaps you could pretend to reach them by applying
Occam's Razor -- the only problem with _that_ is that you'd have to rely
upon the assumption that the people who administer that machine would
willfully ignore security advisories, which doesn't seem all too "simple"
or reasonable to me.  That leaves, it seems to me, the only simple, obvious,
rational conclusion that could be reached by someone who is not imputing
some kind of nefarious motive to the NetBSD Project or its developers as
the conclusion that "something I (Bill Simpson) don't understand is going
on".

So when you blather on on our lists about how you _do_ understand what's
going on, it seems to me you've basically got two choices: either you
are knowingly making factual assertions without rational basis (which
is irresponsible) or you're knowingly accusing the people who run that
machine of being either actively malicious or hopelessly stupid.

If you're not going to stop, at least do me the courtesy of letting me
know which way you're going about it, okay?  Because then, as someone
who _does_ actually know what's going on, I can at least know whether
I should regard you as harmlessly insane or deliberately offensive.

Thor