5 ms·

I know people like to point out Theo's "rants" for some reason (that was nine years ago, for goodness' sake), but is it a rant, or is it just unvarnished truth

by sverige 10y ago

I know people like to point out Theo's "rants" for some reason (that was nine years ago, for goodness' sake), but is it a rant, or is it just unvarnished truth delivered in a style that is more concerned with truth than people's precious feelings? I've read a lot of Theo's emails in the lists, and frankly I find it refreshing that he says what he thinks. And what I really find refreshing is that he gives a shit about whether code is correct, secure, and readable. There's a lot of lip service to those goals, but OpenBSD actually works really hard to deliver it with not a lot of money and precious little thanks. Now, what was inaccurate about his assessment of VM from nine years ago that wasn't true? Or is it just that he seems so darn mean?

riffraff 10y ago
> I find it refreshing that he says what he thinks. you can rephrase that email in a nicer way, while still expressing what you think. For example, you can drop the first paragraph, and no information is lost. You can also remove "if not stupid" and the informational content stays the same. I am an OpenBSD fan in many ways, but you can generally express what you think while still being kind.
- geocar 10y ago
  I don't always agree. Rhetoric has a lot of forms that are useful tools in argument, and while we will not admonish someone for asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet" (or in this case, "Virtualization seems to have a lot of security benefits.") we are too quick to ignore the very valid point in response because it wasn't friendly enough. Derailing the conversation that way prevents us from dealing with what I think is the bigger issue: When someone says something stupid like "have you stopped beating your wife" (or "Virtualization seems to have a lot of security benefits"), we may need to tell them it is stupid, because stupidity has this way of spreading when it sounds nice and helpful (yes, beating your wife is bad; yes security benefits are good), but it's still a stupid statement. Virtualization is extremely popular, but it isn't secure, and it's actually (and when you're thinking clearly, obviously) less secure than other, existing systems. Security has to be a complete holistic effort, and not an abstraction layer, which is something most people in our industry ignore. Calling out someone as stupid for saying stupid things seems to me to be the best defence, after all, you're not going to convince them that they're stupid, but you might convince someone else.
  - david-given 10y ago
    This is the standard apologia for rudeness. The problem is that people don't work like that. If you say something in an aggressive manner, they will tend to assume a confrontational posture and won't work with you. It's just how people are wired. Consider two possible responses I could have to your comment: (a) You're full of shit. (b) In my experience, that's not actually true. Chances are you're going to respond better to (b) than to (a). So, if I actually want to engage you in conversation, or work with you in the future, I should say (b). Routine courtesy is part of the standard toolkit of effective communication skills. It may be cathartic to be rude to someone, but it doesn't lead to long-term progress. > Calling out someone as stupid for saying stupid things seems to me to be the best defence... ...or you could simply explain why you think they're mistaken, without using personal insults, and so win them over to your side of the debate? As it is, you're not just driving them away, but you're also sending a message to everybody else reading the conversation that you're intolerant and difficult to work with, which is not going to help the project. I actually remember that particular conversation, as that was the point when I gave up on OpenBSD, unsubscribed from -misc, and switched to Debian Linux (and never went back). It simply wasn't worth my time to wade through the insults and abuse to get things done any more. Of course, in those days, Theo de Raadt had the reputation for being an angry jerk, and Linux Torvalds had a reputation for being moderate and easy to work with. How times have changed.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      > You're full of shit. If you said that, I would have respected you, even though we disagreed. > In my experience, that's not actually true. Now I know you're just PC police, and that I have nothing to gain by further engaging with you. I have no respect for you. So no, you are wrong. People don't work like that. Or at least people worth talking to are not like that. People see through all the PC bullshit, and respond accordingly. > It simply wasn't worth my time to wade through the insults and abuse to get things done any more. Yeah, this kind of PC attitude it's not worth my time. People who can't, just discuss PC politics, while people who can, just do, and don't care about any of this stuff.
      - 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
So Theo is just like Linus, except for the part where he cares about security.

by sverige 10y ago

riffraff 10y ago

> I find it refreshing that he says what he thinks. you can rephrase that email in a nicer way, while still expressing what you think. For example, you can drop the first paragraph, and no information is lost. You can also remove "if not stupid" and the informational content stays the same. I am an OpenBSD fan in many ways, but you can generally express what you think while still being kind.

geocar 10y ago
I don't always agree. Rhetoric has a lot of forms that are useful tools in argument, and while we will not admonish someone for asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet" (or in this case, "Virtualization seems to have a lot of security benefits.") we are too quick to ignore the very valid point in response because it wasn't friendly enough. Derailing the conversation that way prevents us from dealing with what I think is the bigger issue: When someone says something stupid like "have you stopped beating your wife" (or "Virtualization seems to have a lot of security benefits"), we may need to tell them it is stupid, because stupidity has this way of spreading when it sounds nice and helpful (yes, beating your wife is bad; yes security benefits are good), but it's still a stupid statement. Virtualization is extremely popular, but it isn't secure, and it's actually (and when you're thinking clearly, obviously) less secure than other, existing systems. Security has to be a complete holistic effort, and not an abstraction layer, which is something most people in our industry ignore. Calling out someone as stupid for saying stupid things seems to me to be the best defence, after all, you're not going to convince them that they're stupid, but you might convince someone else.
- david-given 10y ago
  This is the standard apologia for rudeness. The problem is that people don't work like that. If you say something in an aggressive manner, they will tend to assume a confrontational posture and won't work with you. It's just how people are wired. Consider two possible responses I could have to your comment: (a) You're full of shit. (b) In my experience, that's not actually true. Chances are you're going to respond better to (b) than to (a). So, if I actually want to engage you in conversation, or work with you in the future, I should say (b). Routine courtesy is part of the standard toolkit of effective communication skills. It may be cathartic to be rude to someone, but it doesn't lead to long-term progress. > Calling out someone as stupid for saying stupid things seems to me to be the best defence... ...or you could simply explain why you think they're mistaken, without using personal insults, and so win them over to your side of the debate? As it is, you're not just driving them away, but you're also sending a message to everybody else reading the conversation that you're intolerant and difficult to work with, which is not going to help the project. I actually remember that particular conversation, as that was the point when I gave up on OpenBSD, unsubscribed from -misc, and switched to Debian Linux (and never went back). It simply wasn't worth my time to wade through the insults and abuse to get things done any more. Of course, in those days, Theo de Raadt had the reputation for being an angry jerk, and Linux Torvalds had a reputation for being moderate and easy to work with. How times have changed.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    > You're full of shit. If you said that, I would have respected you, even though we disagreed. > In my experience, that's not actually true. Now I know you're just PC police, and that I have nothing to gain by further engaging with you. I have no respect for you. So no, you are wrong. People don't work like that. Or at least people worth talking to are not like that. People see through all the PC bullshit, and respond accordingly. > It simply wasn't worth my time to wade through the insults and abuse to get things done any more. Yeah, this kind of PC attitude it's not worth my time. People who can't, just discuss PC politics, while people who can, just do, and don't care about any of this stuff.
    - 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

So Theo is just like Linus, except for the part where he cares about security.