From: Petre Rodan <[email protected]> To: "Fabio Martins"<[email protected]> Cc: "David Peter"<[email protected]>, "misc"<[email protected]> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 19:20:11 +0530 Subject: Re: A privilege-separated UTM platform for OpenBSD 7.8 and 7.9
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 08:23:55AM -0300, Fabio Martins wrote: > > Looks promising. Congratulations. > > after yesterday's feedback on libera.chat's #openbsd this time he forgot to > mention who actually created this. > > quite sad that once a suite like this would be the pride and joy of a > developer that worked on in for years on end. and now it's being > regurgitated from a prompt and shipped for others to test and waste time on. > > Hello, What stands out here is not the criticism itself, but the absence of any evidence behind it. You claim there was “feedback” on #openbsd supporting your conclusion, yet I was present there and do not recall any such discussion. You also say the project was “regurgitated from a prompt", but that claim ignores the actual work: the architecture, source code, packaging, deployment tooling, privilege-separation model, and the OpenBSD integration. That is not technical critique. It is a conclusion in search of a justification. For the record, when I shared this work on the #OpenBSD channel in April, I was transparent that I used Gemini AI to reorganize and merge JavaScript to make it IIFE-compliant. I have no problem admitting when I use available tools. I am also working under extreme poverty, so AI subscriptions are simply not an option for me. I build with the tools I can access, and I do the engineering myself. If the project has flaws, name them. If the design is unsound, explain why. If specific code is problematic, point to it. That is what technical discussion looks like. Reducing months of work to a cheap slogan about prompts may feel clever, but it does not amount to analysis, and it certainly does not amount to competence. Regards, David Peter https://tangentnet.top https://tangentelectricals.com
