| |||||||||||||
McGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signingMcGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signingPosted Mar 25, 2011 0:23 UTC (Fri) by IgnorantGuru (guest, #73857)Parent article: McGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signing
I can't say I'm surprised to see LWN attacked for getting to the heart of the matter (in fact it was predicted in advance), but their article actually does a good job with a complex problem in Arch's dev team. It is not as simple as non-contributors. Just the energy of their panic should tell you truth has been struck.
As someone wrote me in email:
At any rate, I posted a brief reply to Dan McGee which can also be read here:
(Log in to post comments)
McGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signing Posted Mar 25, 2011 8:46 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I don't want to read about your negative and strange way of trying to forcefully change priorities on LWN. Thanks.
McGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signing Posted Mar 25, 2011 15:07 UTC (Fri) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link]
You realise that saying things like "Just the energy of their panic should tell you truth has been struck" makes you sound like the worst kind of conspiracy theorist? Besides which, the tone of Dan's post was more "exasperation" than "panic", IMO.
Which is not to say that he's right and you're wrong, of course. Just that the casual observer would probably be more inclined to believe Dan, because he doesn't come across as paranoid and aggressive.
McGee: The real story behind Arch Linux package signing Posted Mar 26, 2011 0:28 UTC (Sat) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link]
Correction: not quite as paranoid and aggressive. Dan's post is hardly the picture of level-headedness, either.
|
|||||||||||||