On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Peter Cavender wrote:
> It seems you didn't really look at djbdns too carefully, but just gave it
> a quick and cursory bashing, based on misunderstandings of both the
> software and the RFCs.
I'm really not interested in getting into a flamewar about this. Suffice it
to say that I do not agree with some of the assertions made by the djbdns
people. But I will comment on a couple of things:
No, I didn't look at djbdns too closely. I based my opinion on the
information available from the djbdns web sites. It was a quick and cursory
examination. I believe I made that clear. You are free to take my opinion
and do whatever you like with it, but it remains just my opinion. :-)
> It *does* support TCP, if you really think you need it:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That very comment exemplifies the single biggest issue I have with djbdns.
<DOGMA> It is not the job of the implementor to decide whether or not I need a
feature. </DOGMA>
I do not like software that tells me to go jump in a lake.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
