Subj : Re: Tutorial for rookies To : tenser From : N1uro Date : Wed Oct 13 2021 12:58 pm tenser; -=> tenser wrote to N1uro <=- te> Actually, no: you said, "go read the linux-hams list and URONode list." te> That's not really any more useful than saying, "there are bugs." You asked for bugtracking on software that I neither maintain or own. You doubt me, you doubt Marius. In my eyes that displays hatred. You've been drilling me on this issue and what the bugs are about to which I don't own nor maintain the projects at hand. -My- software itself is fine. There's no known issues with it... but I found the root of the issue that you seem to have... te> Well, perhaps making self-contradictory and objectively false te> statements and then behaving like a spoiled child has something te> to do with it, not to mention your personal behavior. I haven't made any self-contradictory statements and the word "objectively" to describe "false" is opinionated. Simply put: you don't like me - and that's 100% fine. I'm not around to win a popularity contest. te> Given that you are in such poor health, perhaps you should consider te> stepping down as an AMPRNet coordinator. You can also delegate DNS te> to me so that it's not such a burden for you (or, frankly, me). I already have backups however I'm well enough to continue duties and they have requested that I stay on. Disliking someone for who they are is not any reason to request someone leave. I think now that: - you admit you dislike me - you tried to force me to post that which you feel others should be tracking publically - you disbelieve me and others... fine It's not my software or code that has the issues, thus it's not my responsibility to handle the fixes. Why would you feel it is? The more you pushed, the more I pushed back but tried to lead you to where discussions have taken place. I can only state where those discussions are, it's up to you to review them if you so choose however you wish not to believe me on the fact that issues exist when you did see indeed there were recent issues addressed on linux-hams. te> So is it publicly tracked or privately? LinFBB tickets are public sourceforge tickets. te> Also, you _could_ have mentioned this before instead of flying off te> the handle. I not once flew off the handle. This stuff is all a hobby, I don't let it get to me. te> Yeah, that's how open-source software works. Absolutely. te> So hams can install your software and "packet kiddies" can te> own their machines (and their licenses?) today with less effort te> than it takes to find and download your software from Sourceforge. te> Explain to me again how removing your projects from sourceforge te> helps keep anyone secure? Again you're attacking me and my software! It's not my software that has issues. Because of your hatred for who I am you're of a biased opinion. I've just made it a tad more difficult to find it. Perhaps I may have made a mistake pulling it perhaps not. It's a decision I made and I'll have to live with any consequences of said decision... which I really don't feel it's that big of a deal. Why not go after those who do have decades long outstanding issues such as shared memory leaks to fix them? (yes I filed a report in 1998, well before your 44-net block, and it was ignored). Want to talk about ego? Look across the pond. They've taking software I've done, modified it, and never once gave me any credit... yet to now I've not even mentioned it. It's the same folks who have the bugs to fix. te> I suspect that if your "core base" had an alternative they te> would use it. *shrug* I've actually suggested it, but they enjoy what they have. te> I won't use it because the author behaves poorly. That's your choice. I respect and appreciate your opinion. I'm not looking to gain users... I never was. I wrote my software for my personal usage and my personal usage only. It just so happened that others saw it, asked for copies, and it took off from there. Some actually offered ideas which I've given then credit for. Some found bugs which I fixed or features that should be changed which I did. te> In THIS case, you may be right, but that is due to the specifics te> of this particular bug. It was the details particular to this te> specific issue that have been utterly lacking in your descriptions te> but that are critical to understanding, and thus addressing, this te> bug you've been going on about. Just being an "unused socket" te> can mean many things (for instance, it could be a slow resource te> leak, which is otherwise harmless though annoying). te> Getting the details of what precisely was/is wrong, and the effects te> of that bug, are what I've been driving at all this time. My software aside, these issues, and more, have been sitting idle for some time because the maintainers for whatever reasons don't seem to want to acknowledge such bugs nor have a public tracker which suits your desires... however you seem to force this issue on me when it's not my responsibility to do so... and that's what I've been saying all this time. Someone has suggested that Ralf Baechle is the current maintainer however I am not positive this is accurate. The issue we've faced for years is that: - we report a bug - they can't replicate it so it's not to be believed - we follow up with traces/logs/etc - it's still not believed te> You seem to believe that that is somehow an affront to you, te> personally. Perhaps you should engage in some self-reflection te> to understand why you react so personally to a technical issue te> that you are only tangentially associated with. Could it be te> that you don't like being questioned because you consider yourself te> the prima facie expert on these matters? No you have this wrong. I reported that there were bug issues in the stack code. You challenged my integrity. I pointed you to a few places where you could verify my statement. Some places you looked, others you chose not to. That's not on me at all but it appeared you continued to attack my integrity on this issue. te> No you haven't. Objectively false statements like this, and your te> aversion to being corrected, are why I doubt you. Objectively - self opinion. You've stated you're biased against me... I get it. te> Er, no. It might just leak a data structure in the kernel. te> Nothing there implies that the socket is left "open"; just te> that the kernel data structure isn't cleaned up. I showed you what's seen in netstat that the socket is left in a "listening" state. te> Non-sequitor. No... but I get you. I just wanted to see you say that you're quite biased against who I am, and you did. I think with that in mind... we're done on this topic now. 73 --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52 * Origin: Carnage - risen from the dead now on SBBS (21:4/107) .