Ignoramus30183 wrote:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>
> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
> that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
> point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.''

IMHO, Linus is no better than what he says above. Kernel debuggers are
considered "bad" in place of printf all over the place - they both have
their place, but to say one should not be used is just criminal. Maybe
he can live in his own dream world and leave the rest of us to solve
everyday issues. Oh, and the damn Linux SCSI subsystem is just wrong -
what ever happened to true engineered solutions based on standards such
as SCSI CAM (FreeBSD, Tru64 5.x)? That pretty much sums up the whole
Linux experience - hodge-podge code weanies with their head stuck
somewhere making guesses and partial solutions without caring about
engineering rigor or standards.

Getting back to real work now.

In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
Ignoramus30183 writes:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>
> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in

Sigh.



--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

* Ignoramus30183 peremptorily fired off this memo:

> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>
> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
> that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
> point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.''

Good old Linus. He's an asshole of the good kind.

--
Q: How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master stays out
of the way.

* Robert Melson peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Ignoramus30183 writes:
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>>
>> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>
> Sigh.
>
>

Here's Linus' post:

Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that
I think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.

It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
just fix normal bugs aren't as important.

In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
"special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.

Security people are often the black-and-white kind of people that I
can't stand. I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating
monkeys, in that they make such a big deal about concentrating on
security to the point where they pretty much admit that nothing else
matters to them.

To me, security is important. But it's no less important than
everything *else* that is also important!

By the way, I've recently installed the 2.6.25.10 kernel, and it
boots to the login screen noticeably more quickly.

--
We ARE as gods and might as well get good at it.
-- Whole Earth Catalog

On Jul 16, 5:37*pm, Linonut wrote:

> * *To me, security is important. But it's no less important than
> * *everything *else* that is also important!

Linus doesn't know how to prioritize. Typical of a socialist.

>
> --
> We ARE as gods and might as well get good at it.
> * * * * * * * * -- Whole Earth Catalog

Hubris. Inconsistent with your 1% market share. You should be
humble, not arrogant, but as a psychological defense mechanism I
understand your motivation to be arrogant about Linux.

RL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Linonut on Thursday 17 July 2008 00:35 : \____

> * Ignoramus30183 peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>>
>> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>> that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
>> point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.''
>
> Good old Linus. He's an asshole of the good kind.

Another asshole might be that who crossposts to BSD groups for flaming.

Linus mailed me the other day. He's rarely rude, but when he *is*, then people
have it highlighted. It's the same with politicians.

- --
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Florida is bigger than England
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 143 total, 2 running, 141 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh+9/0ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6WAACfYZ1qQgGlvxZfqLwUfsZikpjE
TAYAnAvvmarbBpnSANlUwG6X6wJD2AUM
=EJjC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"raylopez99" wrote in message
news:809a3d3d-ce6c-4603-bb90-a9bc1736c287@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, Linonut wrote:

> To me, security is important. But it's no less important than
> everything *else* that is also important!

Linus doesn't know how to prioritize. Typical of a socialist.

>
> --
> We ARE as gods and might as well get good at it.
> -- Whole Earth Catalog

Hubris. Inconsistent with your 1% market share. You should be
humble, not arrogant, but as a psychological defense mechanism I
understand your motivation to be arrogant about Linux.

RL

================================

Reading Lopez on 'masturbating monkeys', I think
I see what his problem is that leads to the long
thread,'For the SEVENTH time....'

It's himself: *Lopez*.

And maybe he's not getting quite the response he
seems to want, because the answer to it is
simply *all over* cyberspace.

Titeotwawki -- mha [cola 2008 Jly 17]

Roy Schestowitz writes:

> ____/ Linonut on Thursday 17 July 2008 00:35 : \____
>
>> * Ignoramus30183 peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>>>
>>> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>>> that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
>>> point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.''
>>
>> Good old Linus. He's an asshole of the good kind.
>
> Another asshole might be that who crossposts to BSD groups for flaming.
>
> Linus mailed me the other day. He's rarely rude, but when he *is*, then people
> have it highlighted. It's the same with politicians.

I bet he highlighted it so brightly your fat head almost melted.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:57:56 +0200, Hadron wrote:


>> Linus mailed me the other day. He's rarely rude, but when he *is*, then people
>> have it highlighted. It's the same with politicians.
>
> I bet he highlighted it so brightly your fat head almost melted.

Linux probably asked Schestowitz to never, ever ever mention his name in a
post again because he, Linus, does not wish to be associated with a loon
such as Roy Schestowitz.

I know if I were Linus, that's what I would do.

Roy Schestowitz is the Pat Robertson of the Linux community.
He scares away more potential converts than he converts to the Linux
religion.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On 2008-07-16, Ignoramus30183 wrote:

> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys...."

Actually, OBSD is ok, it's that herd of cretins the continue to respond to
no-ray-of-lope troll that are the m/m's.

nb

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:Zrwfk.2382$bN2.1544@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> * Robert Melson peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> > In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > Ignoramus30183 writes:
> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
> >>
> >> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
> >
> > Sigh.
> >
> >
>
> Here's Linus' post:
>
> Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
> one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that
> I think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.
>
> It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
> just fix normal bugs aren't as important.
>
> In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
> because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
> security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
> "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.
>

Well, sooner or later Linus's credit card number is going to be stolen
out of some server that he bought something online from, due to a
security hole, or his medical records are going to be stolen due to
crackers getting access through a security hole, or some such, then
he might change his tune.

His attitude is typical of someone who is building a server for his
own amusement. It is not typical for someone who is building a
server that's use will incur a -large- amount of liability for whatever
organization is using it.

This is why people still buy IBM's products for these kinds of applications.
Not because IBM is any better, it's not. It is because if someone
has a security break in on an IBM system IBM goes ballistic until
they have assured themselves that the security break is NOT due
to a hole in their products, but instead due to some admin's configuration
error. Which is about all you can reasonably ask from a vendor.

Linus's comments are the exact reason why he is NOT managing the
most popular Linux distributions used for business applications. It
is also why virtually all the operational decisions dealing with the Linux
standard have been delegated to other people, and he only gets asked
to make political decisions regarding competing technical arguments
within Linux.

There's nothing really wrong with such a position and the Linux
movement -could- do a -lot- worse for a figurehead. Like, for example,
RMS.

Ted

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:03:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:Zrwfk.2382$bN2.1544@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>> * Robert Melson peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Ignoramus30183 writes:
>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>>>>
>>>> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here's Linus' post:
>>
>> Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
>> one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that
>> I think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.
>>
>> It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
>> just fix normal bugs aren't as important.
>>
>> In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
>> because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
>> security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
>> "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.
>>
>
> Well, sooner or later Linus's credit card number is going to be stolen
> out of some server that he bought something online from, due to a
> security hole, or his medical records are going to be stolen due to
> crackers getting access through a security hole, or some such, then
> he might change his tune.

I agree with what you are saying Ted but I think it depends upon what the
system is being used for.
Personally, I feel that a tight security model should be the foundation of
any operating system.
BSD of course is designed that way as is Linux.
Windows is not.

Windows tried to be everything to everybody, IOW backward compatibility
with DOS Win3.x and so forth and has made some serious comprimises along
the way.
From the outside it looks like Linux is doing the same somewhat.
IOW eye candy appears to be the focus right now so something is ultimately
going to suffer.


> His attitude is typical of someone who is building a server for his
> own amusement. It is not typical for someone who is building a
> server that's use will incur a -large- amount of liability for whatever
> organization is using it.

Reading the message I got the impression he was talking about a quasi
desktop/server, much like what you are saying Ted.

> This is why people still buy IBM's products for these kinds of applications.
> Not because IBM is any better, it's not. It is because if someone
> has a security break in on an IBM system IBM goes ballistic until
> they have assured themselves that the security break is NOT due
> to a hole in their products, but instead due to some admin's configuration
> error. Which is about all you can reasonably ask from a vendor.

Same for Cisco, Netapp, Nortel and a number of others.

> Linus's comments are the exact reason why he is NOT managing the
> most popular Linux distributions used for business applications. It
> is also why virtually all the operational decisions dealing with the Linux
> standard have been delegated to other people, and he only gets asked
> to make political decisions regarding competing technical arguments
> within Linux.

I can't really say.

> There's nothing really wrong with such a position and the Linux
> movement -could- do a -lot- worse for a figurehead. Like, for example,
> RMS.

OMG.
What a loony toon RMS is.

I think it boils down to Linux trying to be Windows, or better, in
regards to everything such as eye candy, desktop, hardware support, wine
etc.
Something has to give and focus has to be limited.

BSD seems much more conservative, however the hardware support for cutting
edge devices seems lacking at least last time I looked.
The focus, security, is top notch however and maybe that's the trade off
that the BSD community is making.



> Ted


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

* Ted Mittelstaedt peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linus's comments are the exact reason why he is NOT managing the
> most popular Linux distributions used for business applications.

Wrong. The reason he isn't "managing the most popular Linux
distributions used for business applications"?

He doesn't want to.

> It is also why virtually all the operational decisions dealing with
> the Linux standard have been delegated to other people, and he only
> gets asked to make political decisions regarding competing technical
> arguments within Linux.

I must admit this is a line of trolling FUD I have not encountered
before.

> There's nothing really wrong with such a position and the Linux
> movement -could- do a -lot- worse for a figurehead. Like, for example,
> RMS.

What's wrong with RMS? Like Linus, he has his quirks. But, also like
Linus, by pushing his ideals /hard/, he has had a /great/ and /positive/
impact on the world of software.

The world of computing owes a great debt to both.

--
Bride, n.:
A woman with a fine prospect of happiness behind her.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> What a loony toon RMS is.



How *dare* you?!?! Don't you know that Stallman /invented/ Linux?




Yes, he's a loony who thinks that fascism == freedom. Whoo-hoo.

Ted Mittelstaedt :

> Linus's comments are the exact reason why he is NOT managing the
> most popular Linux distributions used for business applications.

And this was told by ... ? Or is this comment just as much FUD as the FUD
you're whining about?

> It is also why virtually all the operational decisions dealing with the
> Linux standard have been delegated to other people, and he only gets asked
> to make political decisions regarding competing technical arguments
> within Linux.

If the transition to git was not an "operational" decision, what was it
then? Perhaps a "minor administrative" one?

By the way, Morton only accepts those patches, that Linus has explicitly
agreed on at the LKML. Things, that he does not agree to, won't be
accepted in the mm-tree and thus will never be merged with the official
kernel tree.

--
Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
(Rosa Luxemburg)

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:Zrwfk.2382$bN2.1544@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>> * Robert Melson peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Ignoramus30183 writes:
>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>>>>
>>>> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>>
>> Here's Linus' post:
>>
>> Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
>> one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that
>> I think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.
>>
>> It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
>> just fix normal bugs aren't as important.
>>
>> In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
>> because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
>> security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
>> "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.
>>
>
> Well, sooner or later Linus's credit card number is going to be stolen
> out of some server that he bought something online from, due to a
> security hole, or his medical records are going to be stolen due to
> crackers getting access through a security hole, or some such, then
> he might change his tune.
>
> His attitude is typical of someone who is building a server for his
> own amusement. It is not typical for someone who is building a
> server that's use will incur a -large- amount of liability for whatever
> organization is using it.
>
> This is why people still buy IBM's products for these kinds of applications.
> Not because IBM is any better, it's not. It is because if someone
> has a security break in on an IBM system IBM goes ballistic until
> they have assured themselves that the security break is NOT due
> to a hole in their products, but instead due to some admin's configuration
> error. Which is about all you can reasonably ask from a vendor.
>
> Linus's comments are the exact reason why he is NOT managing the
> most popular Linux distributions used for business applications. It
> is also why virtually all the operational decisions dealing with the Linux
> standard have been delegated to other people, and he only gets asked
> to make political decisions regarding competing technical arguments
> within Linux.
>
> There's nothing really wrong with such a position and the Linux
> movement -could- do a -lot- worse for a figurehead. Like, for example,
> RMS.
>
> Ted
>
>

+1

On 2008-07-20, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
>> "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.
>>
>
> Well, sooner or later Linus's credit card number is going to be stolen
> out of some server that he bought something online from, due to a
> security hole, or his medical records are going to be stolen due to
> crackers getting access through a security hole, or some such, then
> he might change his tune.

The problem is that you can make such an extreme worst case scenario out of
everything:

- The heart-lung machine that stops because of a kernel panic.
- the same heart lung machine that was configured due to a GUI bug.

make a nice story out of it, lots of noise, end of world scenario etc etc..

I somewhat agree with Linus general statement that obsessing and
glorifying that specific area (security) is not the way to go.

But IMHO that is not OpenBSD's fault, and they are doing the more useful
(and ungrateful) work in that area. It should be more targeted against the
"security research" which has become a selffurfulling industry.

"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote in message
news:newscache$prgb4k$xha1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:Zrwfk.2382$bN2.1544@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>> * Robert Melson peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>> > In article <9NCdnQzJdpPEHOPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > Ignoramus30183 writes:
>> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950
>> >>
>> >> ``I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in
>> >
>> > Sigh.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Here's Linus' post:
>>
>> Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
>> one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that
>> I think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.
>>
>> It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
>> just fix normal bugs aren't as important.
>>
>> In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
>> because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
>> security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
>> "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.
>>
>
> Well, sooner or later Linus's credit card number is going to be stolen
> out of some server that he bought something online from, due to a
> security hole, or his medical records are going to be stolen due to
> crackers getting access through a security hole, or some such, then
> he might change his tune.
>
> His attitude is typical of someone who is building a server for his
> own amusement. It is not typical for someone who is building a
> server that's use will incur a -large- amount of liability for whatever
> organization is using it.

I don't remember serious liability or consequences for *any* computer
security breach *ever*. Do you?