Well that did not take very long.

They pulled that stuff [http://www.microbsd.com/MicroBSD/0.6down] within a
few minutes.

--
Adam G. Sweeney
2014 Cherokee Street
Saint Louis, MO 63118
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-miscopenbsd.org [mailto:owner-miscopenbsd.org] On Behalf Of
Miod Vallat
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:45 PM
To: miscopenbsd.org
Subject: MicroBSD and credit
To continue with this ``let's waste bandwidth on misc'' trend, I could not
help but have a closer look at MicroBSD.
It appears that, despite the front page on www.microbsd.net saying that
"There is currently no [...] downloads available", you can still fetch
MicroBSD 0.6 on http://www.microbsd.com/MicroBSD/0.6 (yes, .com not .net).
And if you download the etc06.tgz file
  (http://microbsd.net/MicroBSD/0.6/i386/etc06.tgz),
you might notice that it contains a /var/mail/root file. Given the OpenBSD
roots of MicroBSD, one can reasonably expect this file to be somewhat
similar to the same file in OpenBSD (/usr/src/etc/root/root.mail), which
greets the user and provides some information and tips on how to get the
system set up quickly.
With the installation procedure, the contents of this file are the first
impression someone will have from the system. You can expect it to be
accurate, and as helpful as possible.
Imagine my surprise when it started with:
  From: dingodo-not-reply.microbsd.net (Theo de Raadt)
Is this a proof that Theo de Raadt suffers from schizophrenia, or a bad
joke?
Let's ignore this for now, and proceed to read the contents of this email.
Around line 30, it says this:
  You are STRONGLY urged to use ssh instead of telnet, rlogin, or rsh! ssh
is
  included in all MicroBSD systems.  The implementation is OpenSSH, which we
are
  the developers of. 
Gee. Since when is OpenSSH written by MicroBSD people? Talk about ego!
To be frank, it will be very hard to convince me that this has been an
honest mistake, or whatever. This file, while looking similar to the
equivalent OpenBSD file, has been modified (From: line, ``MicroBSD'' in the
text, removal of the package list section). The final file is 77 lines long.
I won't buy the fact that nobody has proofread a 77 line text file, or that
it has been proofread but such a false claim went unnoticed.
The more I look at the MicroBSD fiasco, the more I think the net effect of
this splinter is to seriously hit *BSD's credibility. Not so bad, for a
system that ``exist for the sole purpose of providing something that doesn't
currently exists'' (ezine.daemonnews.org/200302/microbsd.html).
Thank you very much, but BSD can very well live without being discredited by
careless people.
Miod

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]