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@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:57, Nicolas Vigier boklm@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@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev