Re: Nomination question: Redhat
On Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 05:47:05PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> > The way your argument looks to me is "they have Alan Cox and we
> > don't so they must have a better security tean." So they have Alan
> > Cox working for them, I don't consider this a big deal.
>
> >From what I have understood, the people involved in the 'linux
> security audit' or whatever it is, are mostly working with redhat.
I think perhaps this is something we should be working to rectify rather
than arguing "But they have <insert ubercoder here>!" Of course there
are coders out there and there are GOOD coders out there. A few people
on irc have commented that it looks like I don't respect the work those
out there like Alan Cox have done. On the contrary, I have a lot of
respect for Alan. But even he says we shouldn't be focusing on just the
best of the coders out there because they only do a small part of the
work.
> > As for Alan being more than a kernel hacker, what more is he? What
> > makes him so special that the distribution that hired him is so much
> > better than everyone else? He can code? A lot of people can code.
>
> He's on a pretty close level to Linus, and has done a lot for linux
> (big understatement).
Does that make Redhat better than everyone else? I don't think so. That
they hired people such as Alan Cox and Rasterman is great, but it doesn't
necessarily mean that Redhat is all that much better than the rest of us
for it. I strongly object to that notion.
--
"Shall we play a game?" -- WOPR
Reply to: