Re: [tlug] Confessions of a closet OpenBSD user

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 10:41:52AM +0900, Jonathan Byrne wrote:
> 
> Just one last whack at the dead horse :-)

Horse? what horse? *matt peers around completely oblivious to the bloody
pool filled with clumps of horse hair that he is standing in*. I don't
see no horse. ;)

> 
> I think a contributing factor in any swell of anti-Theo/anti-OpenBSD
> sentiment that arose was the fact that this wasn't just any vulnerability -
> it was a vulnerability in a tool that so many of use depend on for secure
> remote access to our systems.  That scares people, and it should.  That
> also produces stress, which tends to produce impassioned rhetoric.
> 

No the anti-TheoBSD rhetoric is largely due to a perception of arogance coming
from the OpenBSD community.  This might not be from the developers, but the average
OpenBSD user is the first to gloat about security problem you may have because you
were 'stupid' enough to use something else.  The reality is that there are several
OSes that are, for all practical purposes, just as secure as OpenBSD.  The whole
'most secure OS in world' mantra is something you expect from Coporate marketing
departments not a community project. Add Theo legendary attitude and the result is
a opposing group who are just waiting to gloat anytime OpenBSD falls.  You can't go around 
telling everyone you are better than they are and not expect a backlash when the reality that
you are only marginally better than your nearest competition becomes so obvious.  You can't 
sing your own praise in regards to auditing code to catch poor programming of others, and not 
expect a outpouring of derision when things like off by one errors, things that can be caught
by using bounds checking gcc flags, show up in your flagship software.  In short OpenBSD 
needs to quit acting like they are so much better then everyone else when they really
aren't.

As a result, I am very onesided in my criticism of OpenBSD. I apply the same rules to
most things.  I am unfair towards just about anything M$ creates, as is the rest of
the group. I never give XEmacs, hi Steve, a fair chance is discussions even though it
is obviously an incredible piece of software (vim is still better ;)).  I can be extremely
harsh towards RH even though they have done much to make *nix usable by all.  I take a
very debate like approach to these discussions.  I'm defending my side, and I assume someone
on the otherside is going to force me to be honest.  I have never really seen a problem
with this approach, and I am unlikely to change my approach so deal with it. ;)

I think I have ranted long enough I'm going to go do some actual work now.

--Matt