Classic Theo?

I was amused by the opinion piece in yesterday's Register about the problem with BSD security levels. In the article, Jason Miller wrote:

There were two different issues, each affecting different implementations. As usual, I carefully read through the advisories trying to understand what sort of impact the vulnerabilities had, how disclosure had been done, and that sort of thing. Once I got to the "Fix" section of the advisory, something caught my eye immediately.

No fix will be released for OpenBSD. To quote Theo de Raadt: "Sorry, we are going to change nothing. Securelevels are useless." I wouldn't have believed it to be an authentic vendor response had any other name been attached to the quote.

I'm very surprised to discover that Miller feels that way because, to me, the quote seemed like vintage de Raadt, with it's refusal to compromise and it's suggestion that he's way too busy with real work to bother about polishing his words into marketing speak. In fact, now that I think about it, I was rather bemused by the way the article insisted on referring to OpenBSD as vendor — they're more of a gestalt entity like Debian than a corporate vendor like Red Hat.

Means to ends: the debate continues

I thought that Dr Averil Stedeford's letter in response to yesterday's Guardian leader on euthanasia summarised things very elegantly:

Illness is the real cause of the death - the doctor is only controlling the timing. Treatment (of cancer etc) can cure or delay recurrence, but it can also keep someone alive so that their tumour spreads in a way that causes a more miserable death than they would have experienced earlier. For patients who regard length of life as the greatest benefit, this may be acceptable, but some would rather die when it becomes apparent that the battle is lost, rather than be kept alive to the bitter end. Even the best palliative care cannot banish all suffering.

We used to think the timing of death lay in the hands of God. Now we know it is more often controlled by doctors. New powers bring new responsibilities. Should an oncologist now be able to say to some patients, "If I only treat your symptoms, you may die fairly soon. Active treatment may cure you, or prevent recurrence for a time. Even then I may be able to help. But if your cancer comes back in a way that is very unpleasant, I will not force you to endure to the end"?

Rather more helpful than one of the other contributors, who suggested replacing the emotive question, "do patients have the right to die with dignity?", with the equally but oppositely loaded, "do patients have the right to insist that their doctors give them poison to kill themselves with?" Presumably, in order to elicit the correct response from members of the public, this question is should asked cold and out of context: "Excuse me sir, but would you allow your wife or your servant to insist..." Yeah, like that's totally going to clarify the moral debate.