Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Charlie S]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:09:44 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez sent:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> > 
> > AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally
> > mentioned in the bug report
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806
> > 
> > That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in
> > upstream or not, is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that
> > official Debian developers and maintainers adopted a stance of
> > neglecting users' privacy is of utmost importance.
> >   
> That is a rather serious charge to make and one which is not supported
> by the evidence in this matter. Without a doubt there are personality
> issues, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. However, accusations
> of malice should be made with the utmost of care or not at all.
> 
> > I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long
> > time. This thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian.
> >   
> In what way? Debian as a project is made up of ~1000 official
> developers and thousands more contributors enaged in a variety of
> different efforts. To expect perfect conformance and adherence is
> somewhat unreasonable. People make mistakes.
> 
> It appears that the issue here (with systemd-resolved) is most likely
> an honest mistake or perhaps an oversight.  Had Martin (the reporter
> of the bug) ended his bug report with the sentence, "Unless all four
> conditions are true, the default Google DNS servers are not used."
> and left out the last few paragraphs, I suspect the reaction would
> have been somewhat different. The fact is, however, that the second
> half of the bug report is essentially a screed against Google, is
> focused entirely on the "wrongs" of Google, completely ignores the
> fact that Google makes a great deal of positive contribution to the
> community, and also ignores the fact that quite a number of past and
> present Debian developers work or have worked at Google.
> 
> A far more effective approach would have been to include a patch to
> the Debian bug report that effected the desired change. Even better,
> a patch should have been submitted to upstream that added a configure
> or build option to disable the Google DNS servers. Then the Debian
> bug report could have a included a link to the proposed upstream
> patch.
> 
> Speaking as someone who is involved in maintaining quite a few
> different packages, my preferences for making changes to a Debian
> package are odered like so:
> 
> 1. New upstream release
> 2. Patch created from commit made to upstream source
> 3. Patch created from patch proposed to upstream project
> 4. Patch submitted to Debian BTS
> 5. Patch I have to conjure up myself
> 6. Somebody screaming at me that I need to fix something
> 
> Additionally, as the level of inflamatory rhetoric in a bug report
> increases, the more difficult it is to get motivated to work on fixing
> it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
> 
> -- 
> Roberto C. Sánchez
> 

After contemplation, my reply is:

Thank you Roberto. It's true that such thanks are insufficient.

Remembering, each time a program is used, that someone has taken the
time from other things in their life and done an enormous amount of
work. Mostly or always unpaid and oft taken for granted and continues
with this commitment so it runs smoothly, is hardly enough.

Like most people, I don't know who maintains most FOSS and other
software in Debian. Am usually too busy using the program to take the
time to look for the name of the maintainer.

As a wildlife carer on a fixed income, without any payment from
government, company or other source, caring for animals to release back
into their environment, always broke of course. I chafe at not being
able to give a donation to so many who are deserving.

As a grateful user of Debian, even if I had the time, like this text,
stolen from another task, I know nothing of writing code and am
probably now to old to learn.

So yes, thank you for what you do. The difference it makes to my life
is huge. I do think about, and thank everyone for what I have on this
machine which is 10 years old now and salvaged from a rubbish dump.

Stay well,
Charlie 

-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important
that you do it. -Gandhi

***

Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed.

-

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Brian]

On Mon 30 Apr 2018 at 16:18:01 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:24:19 +0200 to...@tuxteam.de said:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 03:00:07PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:43:03 +0200 to...@tuxteam.de said:  
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > It seems this issue is fixed upstream. Would you like to check that?
> > > > 
> > > > Tone down. Apply Hanlon's razor generously [...]  
> > 
> > > This is not about systemd or some bug or something. This is about
> > > attitude.  
> > 
> > Exactly my point :-)
> 
> Good one! :) :)
> 
> > On a more practical note: care to double-check whether the
> > issue is actually fixed upstream?
> 
> AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally mentioned in
> the bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806
> 
> That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in upstream or not,
> is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that official Debian developers and
> maintainers adopted a stance of neglecting users' privacy is of utmost
> importance.

systemd-resolved is not used and enabled by default. If a concerned user
changes that situation, it is not exactly hard to alter the fallback DNS
server(s).
 
> I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long time. This
> thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian.

Questioning one's assumptions from time to time is never a bad thing.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 30 April 2018 10:09:44 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> > AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally
> > mentioned in the bug report
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806
> >
> > That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in
> > upstream or not, is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that
> > official Debian developers and maintainers adopted a stance of
> > neglecting users' privacy is of utmost importance.
>
> That is a rather serious charge to make and one which is not supported
> by the evidence in this matter. Without a doubt there are personality
> issues, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. However, accusations
> of malice should be made with the utmost of care or not at all.
>
> > I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long
> > time. This thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian.
>
> In what way? Debian as a project is made up of ~1000 official
> developers and thousands more contributors enaged in a variety of
> different efforts. To expect perfect conformance and adherence is
> somewhat unreasonable. People make mistakes.
>
> It appears that the issue here (with systemd-resolved) is most likely
> an honest mistake or perhaps an oversight.  Had Martin (the reporter
> of the bug) ended his bug report with the sentence, "Unless all four
> conditions are true, the default Google DNS servers are not used." and
> left out the last few paragraphs, I suspect the reaction would have
> been somewhat different. The fact is, however, that the second half of
> the bug report is essentially a screed against Google, is focused
> entirely on the "wrongs" of Google, completely ignores the fact that
> Google makes a great deal of positive contribution to the community,
> and also ignores the fact that quite a number of past and present
> Debian developers work or have worked at Google.
>
> A far more effective approach would have been to include a patch to
> the Debian bug report that effected the desired change. Even better, a
> patch should have been submitted to upstream that added a configure or
> build option to disable the Google DNS servers. Then the Debian bug
> report could have a included a link to the proposed upstream patch.
>
> Speaking as someone who is involved in maintaining quite a few
> different packages, my preferences for making changes to a Debian
> package are odered like so:
>
> 1. New upstream release
> 2. Patch created from commit made to upstream source
> 3. Patch created from patch proposed to upstream project
> 4. Patch submitted to Debian BTS
> 5. Patch I have to conjure up myself
> 6. Somebody screaming at me that I need to fix something
>
> Additionally, as the level of inflamatory rhetoric in a bug report
> increases, the more difficult it is to get motivated to work on fixing
> it.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto

You make an extremely valid point Roberto, and I shouldn't have to point 
out that each of us, including me and you, is inclined to walk away when 
the rhetoric gets inflamatory. So I'd say, like I say to a military 
veteran, thank you for your service, such thanks is well deserved.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> 
> AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally mentioned in
> the bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806
> 
> That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in upstream or not,
> is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that official Debian developers and
> maintainers adopted a stance of neglecting users' privacy is of utmost
> importance.
> 
That is a rather serious charge to make and one which is not supported
by the evidence in this matter. Without a doubt there are personality
issues, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. However, accusations
of malice should be made with the utmost of care or not at all.

> I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long time. This
> thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian.
> 
In what way? Debian as a project is made up of ~1000 official developers
and thousands more contributors enaged in a variety of different
efforts. To expect perfect conformance and adherence is somewhat
unreasonable. People make mistakes.

It appears that the issue here (with systemd-resolved) is most likely an
honest mistake or perhaps an oversight.  Had Martin (the reporter of the
bug) ended his bug report with the sentence, "Unless all four conditions
are true, the default Google DNS servers are not used." and left out the
last few paragraphs, I suspect the reaction would have been somewhat
different. The fact is, however, that the second half of the bug report
is essentially a screed against Google, is focused entirely on the
"wrongs" of Google, completely ignores the fact that Google makes a
great deal of positive contribution to the community, and also ignores
the fact that quite a number of past and present Debian developers work
or have worked at Google.

A far more effective approach would have been to include a patch to the
Debian bug report that effected the desired change. Even better, a patch
should have been submitted to upstream that added a configure or build
option to disable the Google DNS servers. Then the Debian bug report
could have a included a link to the proposed upstream patch.

Speaking as someone who is involved in maintaining quite a few different
packages, my preferences for making changes to a Debian package are
odered like so:

1. New upstream release
2. Patch created from commit made to upstream source
3. Patch created from patch proposed to upstream project
4. Patch submitted to Debian BTS
5. Patch I have to conjure up myself
6. Somebody screaming at me that I need to fix something

Additionally, as the level of inflamatory rhetoric in a bug report
increases, the more difficult it is to get motivated to work on fixing
it.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 03:00:07PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:43:03 +0200 to...@tuxteam.de said:

[...]

> > It seems this issue is fixed upstream. Would you like to check that?
> > 
> > Tone down. Apply Hanlon's razor generously [...]

> This is not about systemd or some bug or something. This is about attitude.

Exactly my point :-)

On a more practical note: care to double-check whether the
issue is actually fixed upstream?

Cheers
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlrnCvMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZD9QCdEI7zDR095Tl3jJJ75WepugAY
fmQAnjwlbPGH8wykcQYeyJP5XQl862mF
=MPfd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:20:00PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:52:54 -0700 Don Armstrong said:
> 
> > If there is a concern here, it's a privacy concern. Google's public
> > statements regarding maintaining privacy and the need for working DNS to
> > do most things on the internet should counterbalance this privacy
> > concern for most users.
> 
> So according to MicroSoft's public statements, MS products are open, standard,
> secure, privacy respecting, and whatnot.

It seems this issue is fixed upstream. Would you like to check that?

Tone down. Apply Hanlon's razor generously. It's good this has been
noticed and pointed out -- but making a flamefest of it is, in the
end, counter-productive. Systemd is free software after all, even
if some of us don't like it

> Google is a proven PRISM accomplice.



Show me *one* bigcorp which isn't. This is in the nature of things,
and if you want to change it, you'd better find practical ways to
avoid them and show others your tricks.

OTOH, it's 3500 Google employees who petitioned Google to not take
part in a military AI project [1]. In other times, those folks would
have lost their jobs in bulk or would even have ended up in jail
for anti-patriotic behaviour. Times change (not always for the better,
not always for the worse) and things are complex and multi-faceted.
Again, in practical terms, you would do much better to encourage
those 3500 which, in this instance, have done more for world
peace than me or you have. Or something.



Cheers

[1] 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlrmntcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ2zQCaAmPuiqV6FbnvgUDeRdpZzlIn
K4MAn1L/m4dYPl4fdOBlQ4CPEASmoeme
=C0nD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-