Subj : Re: Tutorial for rookies To : N1uro From : tenser Date : Fri Oct 15 2021 04:33 am On 13 Oct 2021 at 12:58p, N1uro pondered and said... N1> te> Actually, no: you said, "go read the linux-hams list and URONode list N1> te> That's not really any more useful than saying, "there are bugs." N1> N1> You asked for bugtracking on software that I neither maintain or own. N1> You doubt me, you doubt Marius. In my eyes that displays hatred. That's absurd. Note also that I never said I doubted Marius. N1> You've been drilling me on this issue and what the bugs are about to N1> which I don't own nor maintain the projects at hand. This ignores the context of this entire thread. A self-admitted "rookie" asked for assistance and you started talking about bugs in the Linux AX.25 stack. I asked you what those bugs were. That somehow seemed to offend you. You've been going on and on about how it would be irresponsible for those bugs to be publicly tracked, while simultaneously pointing at a public mailing list to get information about them, which is itself contradictory and makes no sense. N1> -My- software itself is fine. There's no known issues with it... Sure, fine; whatever. I don't doubt that, though I don't really care either. But it's curious that you have yanked it from the public sourceforge repository due to bugs _outside_ of your software that you now claim you have nothing to do with. If you have nothing to do with it, then why isn't your stuff publicly available? If you care deeply about problems in Linux being fixed before you allow your software in the open again, then why aren't you tracking the status of those bugs? Perhaps this entire thing could have been avoided if you'd merely said, "I'm not tracking those things." N1> but I found the root N1> of the issue that you seem to have... The only issue I have is what I listed above. N1> te> Well, perhaps making self-contradictory and objectively false N1> te> statements and then behaving like a spoiled child has something N1> te> to do with it, not to mention your personal behavior. N1> N1> I haven't made any self-contradictory statements and the word N1> "objectively" to describe "false" is opinionated. That's not what objectively means. It means that you've made statements that are demonstrably incorrect (like claiming that "KA9Q NOS is all over" the BSD and Linux network stacks. A claim that is made _in the URONode.his file_. That claim is, bluntly, false. You should admit you were in error and correct yourself). We all make mistakes; hell, I saw archives of the _wrong_ linux-hams list. But repeated mistakes without acknowledgment of correction tend to imply that one's technical judgment is suspect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if you repeatedly make the claims and do not provide the evidence, people will regard the things you say with increasingly extreme skepticism: that's now science and engineering work. N1> Simply put: you don't N1> like me - and that's 100% fine. I'm not around to win a popularity N1> contest. I never like nor dislike you: I don't know you. However, I think you would be difficult to work with and that you are fickle with your software and its availability. You appear thin-skinned and incapable of having dispassionate disagreements. I find your repeated demands for recognition tiresome. N1> I already have backups however I'm well enough to continue duties and N1> they have requested that I stay on. Disliking someone for who they are N1> is not any reason to request someone leave. Fair enough. N1> I think now that: N1> N1> - you admit you dislike me As I said above. I do find your legal record disturbing and think it is reasonable grounds for not wanting to work with you. N1> - you tried to force me to post that which you feel others should be N1> tracking publically N1> - you disbelieve me and others... fine You seem to view these things as somehow personal; my point, simply, is that if no one is tracking these problems you've pointed out, they may have already been fixed and you wouldn't know. I've also observed in you a repeated pattern of making specious claims and doubling down when they're shown to be false. N1> It's not my software or code that has the issues, thus it's not my N1> responsibility to handle the fixes. Why would you feel it is? You are correct: it is not your responsibility. However, you have yanked public access to your code as a result of the existence of these bugs and made public statements about them going so far as to allude to some "political" motivation for them not being patched. One might reasonably surmise that you feel strongly about these problems. But when asked what the issues were that you seem to feel so strongly about, you were dismissive and evasive. If you are so strongly about them, why don't you seem to have any useful information about them? N1> te> So hams can install your software and "packet kiddies" can N1> te> own their machines (and their licenses?) today with less effort N1> te> than it takes to find and download your software from Sourceforge. N1> te> Explain to me again how removing your projects from sourceforge N1> te> helps keep anyone secure? N1> N1> Again you're attacking me and my software! Not at all. You said you closed access to your sourceforge repositories until these issues were fixed upstream in part because it was too easy for a ham to accidentally expose themselves to a security issue via the way that your otherwise correct code interacts with buggy software. If you cannot see that distinction, that says a lot more about you than it does me. N1> It's not my software that has N1> issues. Because of your hatred for who I am you're of a biased opinion. Get over yourself, man. N1> I've just made it a tad more difficult to find it. Perhaps I may have N1> made a mistake pulling it perhaps not. It's a decision I made and I'll N1> have to live with any consequences of said decision... which I really N1> don't feel it's that big of a deal. Why not go after those who do have N1> decades long outstanding issues such as shared memory leaks to fix them? N1> (yes I filed a report in 1998, well before your 44-net block, and it N1> was ignored). Want to talk about ego? Look across the pond. They've N1> taking software I've done, modified it, and never once gave me any N1> credit... yet to now I've not even mentioned it. It's the same folks who N1> have the bugs to fix. You can climb on down off that cross any time you want to let go of your persecution complex. N1> My software aside, these issues, and more, have been sitting idle for N1> some time because the maintainers for whatever reasons don't seem to N1> want to acknowledge such bugs nor have a public tracker which suits N1> your desires... however you seem to force this issue on me when it's N1> not my responsibility to do so... and that's what I've been saying all N1> this time. Someone has suggested that Ralf Baechle is the current N1> maintainer however I am not positive this is accurate. The issue we've N1> faced for years is that: I'm happy to talk to the maintainers. That was kind of my intent when I first inquired. Since I don't care about netrom all that much (or anything over AX.25, which is dated and inefficient), and the whole experience has been so unpleasant, I'm not sure it's worth my time. N1> - we report a bug N1> - they can't replicate it so it's not to be believed N1> - we follow up with traces/logs/etc N1> - it's still not believed Based on the description you made earlier, it seems like this particular bug ought to be easy enough to replicate. Did anyone work with them on a test case that could reproduce it? N1> No you have this wrong. I reported that there were bug issues in the N1> stack code. You challenged my integrity. I pointed you to a few places N1> where you could verify my statement. No you didn't. You basically said, "go read linux-hams" and claimed there's some kind of private bug tracker. I can find no record that YO2LOJ's patch was ever sent upstream; you've never mentioned whether it was or not. N1> Some places you looked, others you N1> chose not to. That's not on me at all but it appeared you continued to N1> attack my integrity on this issue. See above. N1> Objectively - self opinion. You've stated you're biased against me... I N1> get it. That's not what objectively means. N1> te> Er, no. It might just leak a data structure in the kernel. N1> te> Nothing there implies that the socket is left "open"; just N1> te> that the kernel data structure isn't cleaned up. N1> N1> I showed you what's seen in netstat that the socket is left in a N1> "listening" state. Oh goodness: this continues to be circular. You did that _after_ I asked how the problem manifested itself. In the text you quoted above, I was referring to my questions _before_ you did that. Goodness. N1> No... but I get you. I just wanted to see you say that you're quite N1> biased against who I am, and you did. I think with that in mind... we're N1> done on this topic now. Interesting that you sent me a long follow-up email. Done indeed. --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64) * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101) .