> Yet, persistantly we have been flooded by PAX supporters demanding > that we should give credit to the PAX people for the ideas in W^X. > When we had NOT known about PAX, and when W^X does NOT technically do > what PAX does. > > How is it that out of one side of the mouth PAX people say that things > which I say are not possible on i386 using W^X (full per-page X bit) are > possible using PAX, and then the other side of the mouth says that W^X > is just derived from PAX ideas? [...] > Oh? So to get their reward, they send out their drones to assault other > projects, and get credit that is not theirs? [...] > I urge the PAX authors to get their community's rabid foaming under control. Damn, this looks like textbook OpenBSD methodology for getting a vendor to release hardware documentation or otherwise do what OpenBSD wants. I guess it's a methodology that's only acceptable when it's being done for the "noble" goals of the OpenBSD project and not when it is being targetted at OpenBSD itself. I suppose you might say this is a case of OpenBSD getting back what it dishes out to others. I sincerely doubt that this will have any impact, however, on the behaviour of the OpenBSD drones. But one can still hope. Now if I could think of a security-related angle, this email might even have a chance of ending up being sent to the bugtraq list... (o)
