I'm sure they would have gotten it if they actually read what was written about it but they didn't try to figure out what it was. They made convenient assumptions and jumped to conclusions to push their existing view on the direction to take. I don't really care what they choose.
Conversation
The part that I care about is having someone present a completely uninformed take on it as if it's an expert assessment when it isn't. They could have actually read about it but instead they skipped that and jumped right to dismissing it and making it seem completely useless.
1
Replying to
If you can’t get used to others not reading your documentation and immediately seeing the brilliance of your design then I’m afraid you won’t last long in computers.
3
Why are people commenting without reading the docs? Why is that something Daniel or anyone else should "get used to" ?
1
Not just commenting but laying out this bogus summary and comparison speaking as an expert on the topic, without actually looking into what it's actually about. Now everyone thinks it's awful that I called that dishonest. Pretty much exactly my issue with the security community.
1
1
So for example, at the 2018 Linux Security Summit, someone presented a completely inaccurate account of what happened with my project and turned it into a joke. Everyone got a laugh out of the suffering that I went through. They went out of the way to refuse to talk to me before.
2
1
I read Tom’s posts as an attempt to give your proposal fair consideration and weigh the pros and cons for their very particular requirements. To see this as some kind of personal persecution suggests you’re not professional enough to write Mozilla’s malloc().
1
I didn't make any proposal. I don't want Mozilla to use my code. I never proposed that they use my code. I don't know where you're getting these ideas. That post is incredibly inaccurate and and misleading and he clearly didn't actually look into it. Look at his follow-up post...
1
It's presented as an expert assessment. As you say yourself, it looks like it he put some thought into weighing the pros and cons, but he didn't. He barely glanced at the project and then wrote that post with a totally bogus overview / comparison. That's what I take issue with.
1
Look at his follow-up post replying to me. What you claim happened clearly isn't what happened. You can certainly disagree with me considering what happened dishonest but you're just making up a completely false narrative about what happened without actually looking into it.
1
It's the same issue. Jumping to a conclusion and claiming to provide a meaningful assessment without having a clue what's actually going on, and not because of an inability to understand it, but simply laziness and a desire to push a narrative without actually looking into it.
I found it dishonest, and I'm more than tired of dealing with the daily dose of attacks / misinformation. I wasted time writing a technical response defending it and at the end of it realized how much time they'd wasted and threw in some direct thoughts about how I felt about it.
No one /owes/ you the time it takes to study the very subtle points of your security claims to the point they present them in a way you fully agree with, least of all Tor and Mozilla devs with very rare amounts of experience defending endpoint users from organized attackers
3
That's not what I said or suggested at all. I expect that someone deciding to present an overview / comparison as an expert on the topic to people that are going to take it seriously actually looks into what they're talking about and doesn't just spew some uninformed nonsense.
1
Show replies