I see, now, how my post was misinterpreted.

2015/07/09 9:26 "Joel Rees" <joel.r...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hmm. Should have looked at the contributions page before I posted. I
> was reading "Gold" and thinking "Iridium".

A corporate contribution of between 25,000 and 50,000 (the Gold level
that Microsoft contributed in) is not in the range that it would raise
the concerns I was trying too carefully to voice politely below.

Quite the opposite, and I should have gone beyond saying that it made
Google look a little stingy.

(Facebook, too. And, yeah, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, et. al., should be
suffering from more than little twinges of conscience.)

Still, sudden infusions of cash are not "all good". They often do more
damage than good. Among the problems, people get jealous or
complacent.

In this case, I might be worried that a lot of people who are planning
to buy CDs and/or make other small contributions might find it too
convenient to assume that the corporate "sponsors" are going to take
care of everything.

If any one company were to donate 200,000 or more, it would be that
much easier to get in the habit of thinking there is a corporate
sponsor.

With the current state of contributions, one contribution in the range
of 25,000 to 50,000 is enough to remind us that the openbsd community
is the devs and the users, and the bottom line is individual
contributions. And encourage to keep contributing. So I think
Microsoft's contribution here was good, and probably carefully
considered.

I think we could even have four to six contributors at the 25,000 to
50,000 level without complacency becoming too much of a problem,
because that level isn't as likely to be confused with sponsorship
(real or de facto).

> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since Jorge broached the subject, I have a couple of armpits I'd like to 
> > air.[1]
> >
> > I am glad, Theo, that you are not on the board of the OpenBSD
> > Foundation. For many reasons, including the present topic of
> > discussion, it demonstrates that you understand engineering and
> > security and how they interact from a very broad perspective.
> >
> > I sympathize with the board. There is no correct response that I can
> > see from where I'm sitting.

I was thinking that the Gold level would be in the 250,000+ range. As
I said, I should have gone looking for the actual facts before jumping
to that conclusion. My bad.

> > Beyond that, the board doesn't need armchair quarterbacks.

And I still want to emphasize this to those who have expressed their
worries about influence. Influence buying is not the thing to worry
about here, and, as Thomas said, I think if we are worried about that,
we really don't trust the developers enough to be using what they
build as more than a toy.

Influence was and is the least of my concerns. Induced complacency is
a worse problem, and I won't bother mentioning other strategies that
would likely get used if Microsoft were to decide that they needed to
either absorb or destroy openbsd.

We don't need to be second guessing the OpenBSD Foundation board.

> > I just wish Microsoft had given us (the community, as well as the
> > project) more time.
>
> Less than USD 50,000 is probably not quite in the range to get worried about.

In other words, at this level, I don't think I need to worry that
Microsoft is attempting to destroy openbsd with sudden infusions of
cash.

(And, yes, from what I have seen, Microsoft has done that in the past.
More than once. Changing a few upper-level managers may be enough that
they will quit abusing their monopoly position, but I'm not convinced
yet. If they repeat their contribution at about the same level next
year and the next, without hinting at how OpenBSD could be more
compatible with MSWindows and less with some other OS, I'll be a lot
more willing to believe there has been some substantial change.)

> Makes Google look a little stingy, though.
>
> > --
> > Joel Rees
> >
> > [1] Opinions are like armpits.
> > Everyone has a couple, and they all stink but your own.
> > -- a common saying in Texas from the mid-1970s
>
> --
> Joel Rees
>
> Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
> Look first in your own heart,
> and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
> Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.

I know I shouldn't be so quick to see plots and and such, but
Microsoft has definitely been among the more dangerous companies to
deal with in the past.

And now I'll shut up.

--
Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
and the CPU is just a fancy pen.
All is text, streaming forever from the past into the future.

Reply via email to