[vacri]

Saying that since no one has yet "paid for a team of people to do it" then it "must not be worth doing"

Except that it's much less declarative than you're stating ('kind of implies' is pretty far from 'must'), and even has an emoticon added to indicate commiseration: "kind of implies that no one thinks it is worth doing :(". I agree that context can be missing, but at the same time, you shouldn't be significantly changing the visible context like that - you seem to be more about projecting your own issues rather than reading what's on the page when you do that.

[dmix]

Right, I should take exemplary lessons of politeness and politics from Greg and Linus.

[vacri]

Where did I imply that you should pattern yourself after someone else? I'm working from your own complaints and behaviour. You're projecting again.

A nicely ironic reply, though - if you do actually have problems with the way they behave, why invoke their behaviour to defend your own?

[dmix]

Well speaking of projections, I am not pointing to the lack of politeness, nor politics, as the problem in itself here.

I remarked on his snarkyness simply because it indicative of the problem: there has been a long history of dismissiveness during any discussion of upstreaming PaX/grsec-style mitigations. So considering it is not being taken seriously we will continue to enjoy the side-effects for the foreseeable future.

[rodgerd]

Well, I wouldn't take them off whoever posts under the PAXTeam account to LWN.