Snort mailing list archives
Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort
From: "Matt Jonkman" <jonkman () jonkmans com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:39:45 -0500
I don't maintain the database plugin, I've never maintained the database plugin, why would I be the point of contact for future database plugin contributions? I probably dropped it immediately because it was improperly submitted to the wrong person (me) and you didn't read far enough into the docs to see that Jed/Roman are the guys that develop the database code in Snort.
As I now understand. That was a poor example as the code was submitted by someone I work with on our snort deployment. I don't know for certain who he submitted to, only that it took about a month to get some fixes in. But that is a poor example and he tells me now that the database maintainers have been very responsive since the initial opening of the dialogue. I presented a poor and pointles example. My bad on that.
I'll decide how to distribute my time myself, thank you. Paying my bills is directly related to the quality of Snort now, take the next few logical steps to understand what this means in terms of Snort's quality and capabilities. Combine that with my commitment to keeping Snort open source and I think this whole notion of forking "for the good of the people" to be a false premise.
The notion of forking for the people is dramatic and not what I'm driving at. Forking for the good of Marty and thus the community I think might be closer to the point I was trying to make, yet still dramatic. I still stand by the idea that somewhere down the road, be it 6 months or 20 years, you as a leader of an open source project and a commercial organization that is built on that same open source project may be put in a position to have to make a choice that is right for the open source project but could have a significant negative financial impact on Sourcefire. The possibility is theoretical, and unlikely, but exists. That was and is my point. My thoughts on this may have exaggerated in the absence of much recent news about the makeup of sourcefire, and the rules. The thought would still have enetered my head, but wouldn't have gone far enough to get out of my fingertips most likely. I'm sure you haven't been quiet on the subject, but I've not run across much word or many articles of late reaffirming your dedication to keeping snort open sourced and independent, and about the relationship of your investors to the community. Most likely that's because I haven't done reading much more than these lists and the occasional technical review of snort vs others in the propaganda magazines. And I also never said or implied that I believed you *would* make a choice against snort either, only making the point that you will be in the position to affect two dependant yet separate entities. That's not the best position to be in when there are thousands of people and organizations watching and depending on the outcome, as well as your own income. I see Jed's original post in this thread as a poorly hidden jab aimed at defamation and stirring up trouble, and I'm sorry my sentiment was associated with that. It merely got me thinking. Your later response (after my post) reaffirming your dedication to the open source status of snort, and more so your explanation of the groundrules and agreement set down before your investors leaves me reassured that that possibility you'd have to make that choice is slim. I more believe now that you'd first dump an investor that might pressure you to do something not in the best interest of snort before making a bad choice. I would hope that this possibility is constantly considered as snort grows and as sourcefire enjoys continued success. Snort is a great thing and everyone has done a great job on it, Marty, the dev team, the users, and those patient souls that answer the same basic questions on the users list over and over without frustration. That's why this exists, and I believe it's been so successful because of the absence of direct commercial control. Development has not been based on whether the new feature would make more money than would be invested in developing it, but whether it'll catch more on the wire. Matt ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek No, I will not fix your computer. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Snort-users mailing list Snort-users () lists sourceforge net Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users Snort-users list archive: http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users
Current thread:
- Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Martin Roesch (Jul 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Martin Roesch (Jul 03)
- Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Matt Jonkman (Jul 03)
- Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Jeff Nathan (Jul 04)
- Re: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Matt Jonkman (Jul 03)
- RE: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Bob Walder (Jul 05)
- RE: [Snort-devel] Re: RFC: Forking Snort Bob Walder (Jul 05)