[Arm-netbook] Side-Topic: Liberating PocketCHIP
mike.valk at gmail.com
mike.valk at gmail.com
Tue May 30 08:15:33 BST 2017
2017-05-30 4:36 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>:
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:48 PM, David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
> > I am just a tad confused.
> > 1. You started a reverse engineering project on NT domains.
> > 2. You presented your success to MS as a security problem.
> and also a collaboration and interoperability opportunity (which
> worked extremely successfully).
> and it also galvanised them to do a proper documentation effort.
> basically there wasn't any. at all. the code had been organically
> develeped by engineers that were getting on for retirement age. as
> they were the only ones left who understood the security implications,
> they began a rather urgent process called the "CIFS Initiative" to
> document the protocol so that their *own engineers could understand
> frickin funny, really.
> > 3. You were hired.
> > 4. Someone in MS complained.
> some fuckwit in the brain-washed marketing department, yes. what's
> hilarious is that microsoft's own employees - the ones with good
> reputations and standing - had to tell this particular specimen of
> brainwashed fuckwittery, "you _do_ realise what this one individual
> could do to our company if you ever pissed him off??"
> > So, the FLOSS folks never saw your work anyway?
> they did.... and they resented it, very very badly. the so-called
> leaders of the samba team *really* did not like the fact that i knew
> more than them about MSRPC, and that the work that i spearheaded
> increased the codebase of samba at the time by a whopping THIRTY
> so they engineereed a way to get me out.
> by 2003 someone in the FLOSS community tracked my work on Exchange
> 5.5 reverse-engineering, copied it, reimplemnted it, and did not tell
> anyone that i was the one who had done the reverse-engineering.
> 20 years later samba is considered to be a failure. samba 4 was
> something like 10 years in the making, and yet failed to deliver.
> companies that had held on to samba 3, which the samba developers
> STOPPED work on because they didn't understand it properly, were
> struggling to keep it up and running and were totally incensed when
> samba 4 was finally released and was even worse and even harder to
> they pushed me out and FLOSS has suffered as a result, because the
> complexity is so high it's beyond their ability to cope.
You're sounding like libv here ;-)
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
More information about the arm-netbook