An excellent reason to use Usenet then.

That's why, as a developer, you don't grant public access to post to
the bug tracker at all. Instead, you set up a forum -- preferably an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup -- and periodically grep it for anything
relevant. Flamers and idiots that don't come up in these searches are
ignored automatically. The rest you killfile. If you need more info,
you post a followup asking for more info.

Or, of course, you can also decide to be a jerk and set up a
registration-only system instead, thus ensuring a lot of people on
guard about their privacy avoid submitting bug reports.

Your choice I guess.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

There is *the forum where users and developers commingle*.
Then there is *the tracker the developers use to keep track of bugs and
bug reports*.

The one doesn't have to have anything to do with the other, save that
the developers access both, and put newly reported bugs from the forum
into the tracker.

You are proceeding under the false assumption that the only way to
manage things is to publicly expose the bug tracking database itself.
And I have shown that not only isn't that the only way, it's also not a
good way because if it's safe for users it's crummy for developers, and
if it's clean for developers it forces users to jump through hoops, put
their privacy at risk, and memorize extra passwords.

And how likely is that? Especially if the real lead developer pgp-signs
their posts or something.

You are concluding that users must perforce be made to register for the
privilege of reporting bugs after starting from a deliberately
impoverished set of options, curtailed by a bunch of phony assumptions,
presumably ones you selected to force the conclusion you want.

What is your *real* agenda for pushing for registerwall balkanization
of the net, mister?
Why do you oppose any proposal that allows the same official goals (of
developers getting bug reports without too much crud mixed in) while
also better safeguarding users' privacy, simplifying bug reporting
itself, and not further proliferating the profusion of sites that need
yet another login and password for you to memorize?

Only the spammers and other evil miscreants have any motive to prefer
registration-requiring methods over non-registration-requiring methods
that otherwise meet the same stated goals.

No, I said www.hotmail.com, "sign up". If you did something different
that doesn't count.

Even if it's easy as you say to make a throwaway email, IT'S STILL
f.cking JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS.

Ten years ago, if I wanted to report a bug or do something else on the
net, I simply did it.

Now, for each new site, it seems, I am expected to
a) Get a new, throwaway email
b) register at that site
c) throw away the email
d) memorize the username/pass at the registerwalled site
e) ...
adding up, eventually, to millions of memorized passwords. Or one
extremely unsafe one, unsafe because reused everywhere.

And if I object, I get flamed and harassed.

IT IS GETTING f.cking RIDICULOUS AND I SIMPLY WILL NOT DO IT ANYMORE.
PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF THREAD. f.ck you and good night!

LISTEN UP, IDIOT. I STARTED THIS THREAD. I OBJECTED TO REGISTERING FOR
VARIOUS REASONS AND I STATED THOSE REASONS. YOU ARE OBJECTING TO THOSE
REASONS. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THIS DISCUSSION GOT STARTED, THE POINT IS
EXACTLY WHAT I SAY IT IS, AND YOU WON'T CHANGE IT BY BRINGING UP STRAW
MAN ARGUMENTS ATTACKING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE POSITION I ORIGINALLY
TOOK, WHICH IS THAT THE TREND OF WEB SITES REQUIRING REGISTRATION TO DO
ANYTHING IS f.cking EVIL. GOT IT?

Then shut the f.ck up, because it is "the point" I was making. By
attacking some utterly different "point" YOU ARE NOT WINNING YOUR CASE
ANYWAY.

f.ck YOU FOR NOT LISTENING ***AGAIN***!!! I AM GETTING TIRED OF THIS
BULLSHIT! NOW YOU f.cking SHUT UP AND LISTEN.

I said that a software developer may be expecting me to do one of three
things:
* Not register for their software.
* Register for all software.
* Register for *their* software, but not all software.

The second is onerous (all those passwords to remember, all those
opportunities for personal info to be misused).

The third means they want me to elevate them to some kind of special
status relative to other software vendors. They are demanding special
treatment. I will not cave in to such demands.

NOW have you FINALLY gotten the f.cking POINT?

And will you finally SHUT UP?

And as for throwaway emails, what about registration-requiring sites
that demand more? It's not like there aren't plenty out there. And not
all of them accept phony data typed in, either.

Considered in a VACUUM maybe it doesn't, but I am not the only user,
and Eclipse is not the only software in the world.

Let's recap. My argument is:
* The trend towards more and more registration required in more and
more places is bad.
* I won't register because registering subsidizes and endorses a bad
trend.
* Every single time anyone caves in and registers anywhere they make
that bad trend
 stronger.

My actions don't occur in a vacuum. I cannot in good conscience fail to
use every opportunity to oppose this alarming and dangerous trend in
today's Web.

You, on the other hand, will not even properly address the first point
above, and you suggest everyone just register when it's some site they
use a lot, or whatever. You are extremely dangerous, suggesting that.
People just sighing and taking it up the butt when requested and when
it's somewhere relatively important to them is part of the problem, so
when you encourage it YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

The registerwall problem with today's Web will NOT go away until people
STAND THEIR GROUND and REFUSE TO REGISTER until the trend goes away,
and site operators realize that they will simply drive their business
elsewhere by trying to force users to register. UNTIL WE, THE PEOPLE,
HAVE SENT THAT MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR the site operators will continue
to extort our personal information to sell to the highest bidder or
otherwise misuse. THIS MUST STOP. I WILL NOT REGISTER. I ASK EVERYONE
HERE TO STAND BESIDE ME AND REFUSE TO REGISTER AT WEB SITES until site
operators stop demanding it.

It is time we took back our right to surf anonymously and our right to
keep our personal bona fides private. IF YOU STAND IN OUR WAY YOU WILL
BE STEPPED ON.

Now either come up with a cogent argument as to why I should not oppose
Web registration, or SHUT THE f.ck UP, OK? I grow tired of coming here
every day and finding yet more hostilities, attacks, and tissue-thin
"rebuttals" in need of rebutting in my own defense. Just admit you've
lost and shut the Christ up!

What's the point of being fair, in general? What use is a newborn
child? Why the f.ck should anyone listen to *you*, you industry
apologist and vulture-capitalist pig?

I will not ever give a gift or do a favor for a corporation,
government, or other large organization. Ever. And don't you DARE
suggest that I should behave otherwise.

No. It still means hoop jumping (start new browser window, go there,
search it ...) and using the site that wanted registration still sends
the wrong message (that I'll meekly bend over when big businesses that
run Web sites tell me to -- I will not).

NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO. That will only encourage the sites to make
more effort to conceal their motives, not to stop demanding people
register, IDIOT.

ALL sites that require registration have ulterior motives. WHATEVER
they do could be done without that requirement; its gratuitous
requirement is just to either
a) Give them more, totalitarian control over users (e.g. censorious
control vs. what could be managed in an unmoderated usenet group, or
b) Mine addresses and other data for f.cking SPAMMERS.

Any site that actually has honest intentions, but still demands
registration, is simply being silly and unaware of alternative
implementations that are much more convenient for the users, not to
mention don't put their privacy at risk and ensure against tyranny
evolving.

Look at Web forums vs. Usenet. On Usenet a flamewar results in some
killfilings. On Web forums, it results in the site admins strapping on
jackboots and censoring everything, banning people, and so forth, a far
worse outcome.

You cannot honestly hold the position that registerwalls are anything
but evil, except when they're simply dumb.

Well, I understand yours perfectly. I give numerous explanations of how
registration-requiring can be avoided while attaining the same goals
officially held to be the reason for requiring it -- spam-avoidance,
say -- and yet you still favor forcing people to register, even when it
is
a) Inconvenient for the user;
b) A risk for the user (how will their information be used/misused)
c) A lever that can be used against the user (step out of line and we
can delete what you write, ban you, etc.; chilling free speech and
allowing the suppressing of constructive criticism)

I simply cannot therefore see any validity to any position in favor of
requiring people register. When that's happened in the offline world,
it's invariably been followed down the road by purges, gulags, and war.
Now it's happening online -- more and more sites insist you register
before you can do anything, sometimes even just browse and read stuff.
This practise is spreading at an alarming rate. It breaks links, blocks
Google from indexing information (or worse, they let the googlebot
through the wall, and Google gets polluted with bait-and-switch links
that look relevant but actually lead to login pages, registration
forms, requests for your credit card, etc.), and makes users jump
through hoops if they want access to the site.

And of course, because it creates the problem of keeping track of a
trillion passwords, it's an excellent way to push forward an agenda of
creating a single, Web-wide logon that will initially seem convenient.
But unlike your isp logon, every participating site gets access to your
personal info. It's a super-ChoicePoint waiting to happen, for
starters. But the main thing is, it will then be a single point lever
of control, and once it is widely used and generally accepted by
everyone that they need a "passport" on the 'net ...

Shut it down, paralyze the world economy.
Anyone who steps out of line in the world can be revoked, and they are
toast.
Nobody will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the Beast.

We know where that leads. A world totalitarian power. If the shady
organizations pushing this agenda manage to shove "trusted computing"
down our throats too, then they'll be all but impossible to overthrow,
and it's game over for the human race -- freedom will die. Everywhere.
With no realistic hope of its resurrection.

Now, perhaps, that you understand the sheer magnitude of what we are up
against, maybe you will realize you've been backing the wrong side?
Every single time someone registers meekly at some Web site; every time
someone installs Windows Vista with its "trusted computing" features --
mostly toothless, but the idea is to inure people to it first, and then
tighten the noose later; every single time anyone knuckles under to big
business demands to register for this, to let them install cop-in-a-box
DRM to control and monitor your "license compliance" using that, etc.;
every single such event is another bullet fired into Freedom. Freedom
can take a lot of these, but it can still only take so many before it
falls over dead, and we all have to comply with licenses to breathe, to
walk, to sneeze, to take a piss, or to say anything or do anything,
licenses strictly monitored and enforced by computers and ubiquitous
technology.

Keep going this route, and it'll be "Welcome to City 17", in other
words.

Given that registrationists are (even if blindly) supporting the cause
of the hidden fascists behind "trusted computing" and similar agendas,
it is especially bothersome to see open source projects among their
ranks. Unknowingly aiding and abetting the enemy, the shadowy agencies
behind the Microsofts of the world who will give Microsoft the power to
crush open source once they have the power.

And here you are, asking me to do my little bit to participate in the
world handing them victory on a silver platter. And by not respecting
peoples' rights to privacy and pseudonymity/anonymity on the 'net, the
Eclipse folk are playing into the hands of the enemy, too.

You can't use "Well this site's registration is not evil, and that
site's registration is not evil" or implementation details as a defense
of Web registration in general.

If I register anywhere, I become part of a trend I see as dangerous to
freedom and democracy, nevermind to individual privacy and personal
security.

Please stop asking me to.

That applies to you and anyone here who operates, or is an apologist
for, any Web site that does so.

That's all of the time it takes to hit ctrl+C, alt-tab, ctrl+V. And a
computer keeps track of it between the ctrl+C and the ctrl+V.

Oh ... how difficult!

That'd happen sooner if I didn't get bogged down rebutting long rants
hostilely attacking my general registration-refusenik policy every day
on Usenet. Maybe if the idiots that keep writing the long rants I must
then refute would just *shut up*...

Not under these circumstances, which you contrived by starting a
flamewar by criticising me for posting a report of buggy behavior; at
least not if you also uncharitably assume the developer has a complete
inability to use a search tool or engine to narrow things down to just
the bug reports themselves.