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@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:danielmicay@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:57, Nicolas Vigier <boklm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:boklm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev