[tor-dev] TBB Memory Allocator choice fingerprint implications

[Richard Pospesel]

Yeah same, this convo went from 'wow an interesting discussion about
allocators' to 'fuck you Tom' real quick and without provocation.

From a human standpoint, maybe try and be your best self? Or (if you
prefer) from a practical standpoint, maybe berating on one of the devs
that would be reviewing your allocator patches isn't the best path
forward to achieving your goals?

best,
-Richard

On 8/21/19 1:28 PM, Ryan Duff wrote:
>> If someone is going to criticize other people's work and dismiss it as
> nearly useless without even somewhat informing themselves about it,
> they should expect to be called out on that.
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight but, as an outside observer, I never
> got the impression that this is what Tom was doing. I read it as
> "hardened_malloc is better but we are trying to do these /n /things to
> try to close that gap". I didn't read it as an attack at all.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:37 PM Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com
> <mailto:danielmicay at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:57, Nicolas Vigier <boklm at mars-attacks.org
>     <mailto:boklm at mars-attacks.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Daniel Micay wrote:
>     >
>     > >
>     > > No, you're just making false attacks and misleading comparisons
>     / spin
>     > > to promote your own work, which is trash. You're being incredibly
>     > > dishonest and unethical. You didn't even bother to inform
>     yourself about
>     >
>     > It's fine to disagree with Tom about what he wrote in his previous
>     email,
>     > however calling him dishonest and unethical seems very wrong to me. If
>     > anything he wrote was not correct or misleading
> 
>     If someone is going to criticize other people's work and dismiss it as
>     nearly useless without even somewhat informing themselves about it,
>     they should expect to be called out on that. You might find my reply
>     offensive, but I found the email that I was replying to extremely
>     offensive and I had to subscribe to this list and figure out how to
>     send a reply to a past email from the archive to defend the value of
>     my work. It wasn't fair or accurate criticisms or comparisons.
> 
>     It's not the first attack that I responded to today or the last. It's
>     one of many. The depth and tone of my responses varies based on what
>     I'm responding to. If I can assume good faith, I will do it, but I
>     could not do that here with how it was presented. All of this is time
>     is taken away from working on the projects and that hurts, but so does
>     leaving it unchallenged.
> 
>     > I doubt it was intentional and more likely it was some honest
>     mistakes.
> 
>     I don't see how you can suggest it wasn't the intention. It's
>     dismissing the project / work and the value of it without even putting
>     in basic effort to learn what it is and what it does. It's presented
>     as informed, expert commentary when it isn't. I had a serious problem
>     with it and I responded in the way I felt was suitable. I intended to
>     express how I felt about it which wouldn't have been accomplished by
>     using forced diplomatic wording. I said that they were being dishonest
>     and unethical with their actions. If people don't want to be called
>     out for that, they shouldn't do it.
> 
>     Mozilla has a history of harming me. I've documented this as one more
>     case of attacks from Mozilla to go along with everything else. I see
>     no reason to put up with it or tolerate it. Mozilla should expect that
>     one day they're going to be held accountable. If people at Mozilla
>     aren't aware of the unethical behavior it regularly engages in
>     including an exploitative approach to contributors, they should inform
>     themselves. My issue is primarily with Mozilla as an organization and
>     a culture rather than any specific individuals participating in that.
>     I think the problem is ultimately that self-righteous, dishonest
>     organization presenting itself as a benevolent force of good when it
>     really doesn't line up with the reality. It taints how the people
>     involved approach things. Since these past issues were never
>     addressed, and the company hasn't changed, any attacks from people at
>     Mozilla are a spark igniting this existing conflict. It's not my
>     responsibility to inform all their employees about what the
>     organization has done and failed to resolve.
> 
>     I'm not planning on participating on this list beyond defending myself
>     here and in future cases.
>     _______________________________________________
>     tor-dev mailing list
>     tor-dev at lists.torproject.org <mailto:tor-dev at lists.torproject.org>
>     https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20190821/313cd264/attachment.sig>