[linux-elitists] anybody using non BIND dns?
Thu Feb 1 16:04:54 PST 2001
A couple of years ago I had a nice long talk with Paul Vixie (he was
asking me -- or Cisco really for money so he was willing to put up
with the indignity of talking to someone as clueless as me). He really
doesn't fall into any of the common camps of "proprietary software
advocate" "open source software advocate" or "free software
advocate". He is his own animal and has values that really conflict
with some commonly held "open source" or "free software" values. This
really doesn't surprise me. I think that what we are seeing here is
are two examples of Vixie's elitism. He is truly an "elitist".
(Even though this list is supposedly comprised of "linux-elitists" we
are all probably dramatically more egalitarian than Vixie. It is
almost humorous that this discussion sprang up here on this list and
that Heather's egalitarian values conflict with Vixies's elitistic
values. Should we act like true elitists and throw Heather off of this
list because of her egalitarian point of view?)
The first example of elitism is with regard to working on BIND. Vixie
1) Very few people (all of which are well known to him) understand the
idiosynchrocies of DNS and the associated RFC's well enough to make
changes to BIND without fucking things up.
2) Virtually no-one is a good enough programmer to modify BIND without
fucking it up.
3) Since items 1 and 2 are true there is no point in even looking at
patches from someone unknown to him.
The second example of elitism is with regard to working with BIND. He
1) There are very few organizations which have a serious need to work
2) It is perfectly acceptable to make an member's only organization of
these elite users which affords them access to some extra support in
the form of items 1-4 below. (he is an elitist after all)
3) There is danger in sharing certain information such as security
problems with the community at large.
4) Most of the people who use BIND are incompetent and supporting them
is a waste of time.
5) Allowing incompetent users on the same mailing list as elite users
wastes the time of the elite users and chases them away.
> [ trimming mercilessly ]
> > Given BIND's current "going closed" tendency something like that might
> > suddenly become of great importance...
> > ---->
> > Requirements of bind-members will be:
> > 1. Not-for-profit members can have their fees waived
> > 2. Use of PGP (or possibly S/MIME) will be mandatory
> > 3. Members will receive information security training
> > 4. Members will sign strong nondisclosure agreements
> > Features and benefits of "bind-members" status will include:
> > 1. Private access to the CVS pool where bind4, bind8 and bind9
> > live
> > 2. Reception of early warnings of security or other important
> > flaws
> The idea that you should have to pay and sign nondisclose for security flaws
> that they know about... such Bull***! Ican see it for early access to source
> code (assuming that they follow a model of new changes are under some private
> license until debugged... snort if you want, but that's basically what the
> XFCOM sequence is about).
> Anyone serious can attend an IETF conference so the 3rd "feature" is not
> worth much.
> So let's see if I'm interpreting this right, they're really "re-purposing"
> the list from a high-level-dev interest point, to a consortium-members kind
> of thing. Be on the committee that invents the next horse, pay to be there,
> Would have done better to spawn a different list, and announce whatever lack
> of participation they were going to be "adding" to the other one so they could
> hope it would dwindle and die. Ah. marketing spin wants the list name, I
> * Heather *
> Adhere to your own act, and congratulate yourself if you have done something
> strange and extravagant, and broken the monotony of a decorous age.
> -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
More information about the linux-elitists