Thus spake Thor Lancelot Simon ("TLS> ") sometime Today...

TLS> > I beleive there is rough consensus that you're extremely biased, have
TLS> > never once considered, commented on, or even recognized any
TLS> > compromises; and have very little (nothing new either) evidence
TLS> > supporting your crusade.
TLS> [...]
TLS> > It's called collaberative development for a reason.
TLS>
TLS> Your comments are extremely rude and entirely uncalled-for.

Actually, with all due respect, I think they were rather spot-on.
Coarse, perhaps, but not inaccurate.

Not everyone has your gift of tact.

TLS>  Soda-san
TLS> has made many important contributions to NetBSD in his long tenure as
TLS> a developer.

Be that as it may, that does not give credence to a militant opinion
which leaves no room for compromises.

TLS> He is entitled to his opinion, which many of the NetBSD
TLS> developers happen to share...

I'd dare say that as many differ, and I note how quick the PAM-first-
and-foremost(-and-only?) crowd is quick to defend their point of view.

It should be noted that it is an opinion and will hopefully not be taken
at face value as gospel.  That would be an insult to a great many users
of NetBSD.

Not that the users have EVER made a difference when it comes to technical
decisions (I'm still grateful to mrg and lukem for allowing
MK_DYNAMIC_ROOT=no, by the way -- one place where the Developers *did*
listen).

TLS>  He also stated that opinion concisely and
TLS> politely -- in dramatic contrast to your long, choleric rant.

Concise?  Is there another meaning for "concise" of which I have previously
not been aware?  I will grant polite, yes.

The points presented by Peter Seebach (and others) have at least admitted
that PAM could be there as well.  Soda-san made NO such concession.

TLS> Collaborative development, eh?  What have you done for me lately?

I think the point is that there are some valid points being brought up
on both sides, and the PAM crowd is being very PAM-ONLY about it all,
while the BSD Auth crowd is at least leaving room for PAM to co-exist.

Collaborative development, yes.  Do we have to be on the Exalted List
of Developers to be considered to have useful input, or are all the
rest of us just peons whose opinions matter not at all?

Frankly, I think we're just tired of seeing the same old go-round.  It's
(a lot like) a political battle where one end is willing to make concessions
while the other end keeps trying to railroad it until they get exactly what
they want (gee, sounds familiar) without consideration at all to the other
side.

If one side is playing this game with no intent to concede in any way,
shape or form, it ceases to be a collaboration.

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: Power Your Net.