Am 11 Dec 2009 um 09:19 schrieb P-O Yliniemi:
There are a lot more abuse of the misc list than Soner posting about his OpenBSD project. Maybe Theo should install a decent spam filter for the lists ?
This is levelling down a distinction: there's spam that's definitely spam and can be filtered reasonably easily before or after being sent to the list. Sending something to the list that's not readily distinguishable from other content is no longer a problem for a spam filter, wherever it may sit. The fact that the list doesn't filter spam for you mechanically doesn't mean members shouldn't intervene against a different class of posting.
What's wrong with posting OpenBSD-related 'adverts', and in this special case with ComixWall which is totally free ?
Well, if the principle is that this list is to build and support community around OpenBSD, it's a question about what's considered acceptable conduct within the community. Clearly there are strong feelings on either side, but I gotta ask whether advertising a redistribution, where there's not a lot of evidence of other involvement in the community, doesn't at least come across as, at minimum, genuinely subject to question. We can disagree as to what the answer is, but the exceptional characteristics that make this a question don't just answer themselves by the kinds of characteristics or implications that have been argued in its favour.
I agree with a lot of the other posts that ComixWall doesn't really promote OpenBSD in any way, but for those who are looking for a solution like the one that it provides, this "distribution" will save some hours of installation and compilation time.
Sure, but how about substantial questions like code audits for the PHP code and determining processes and mechanisms for patching? Binary distribution may not be a sin in itself (I've come around to the opinion that it's largely oversold as to its benefits), but, particularly if it's claiming to carry the flag of simplification, one may nevertheless be circumspect about the approach and implementation, by people who've not otherwise established standing in the community and demonstrated the viability of their work in that context. I understand why people who've made sustained contributions to OpenBSD would not be happy with advertising a redistribution vexed by these kinds of questions.
I've had enough experience with Unix engineering to have both sympathy for someone who does this kind of work independently of established community organs and a strong scepticism as to whether the product will be nearly as robust as advertised or imagined for lack of strong challenges and correctives from peers and existing centres of expertise. I can't think it reasonable to be so taken away with the sympathetic element of response as to overlook or underweight the strong prospect of flaws resulting from the approach taken, and I think it's adequate here that the issues be merely prospective, as vetting needs to happen before a product is announced as shipping. Conversely, with time spent talking about how you might solve the kinds of problems entailed by such project, developers have a decent chance of establishing credibility and the prospective quality of their project well enough that they wouldn't necessarily have to overload an existing channel to make release announcements. Alternatively, such developers would recognise some fundamental misconceptions and find other projects on which to expend their energies.
My 2p, Buffer G. Overflow
