patrick keshishian wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM, frantisek holop <min...@obiit.org> wrote: > >> hmm, on Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:20:13PM -0400, Ted Unangst said that >> >>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011, frantisek holop wrote: >>> >>> >>>> it's not like there are no reasonable alternatives. nginx for example >>>> has a nice security record and a 2 clause bsd license. but as it's in >>>> the ports i personally dont care if it's in base or ports. sendmail and >>>> apache are really the only things in openbsd base that baffle me >>>> everytime i cross paths with them. they represent everything the >>>> openbsd philosophy refuses. >>>> >>> They represent the backwards compatible and don't go chasing the newest >>> thing because it's new parts of the philosophy. That doesn't mean the >>> same choices to include them would be made today, but the decision isn't >>> being made today either. >>> >> choices are being made every day :] >> >> plenty of examples in openbsd for much more radical changes, >> openbsd is certainly not in the category of the faint hearted. >> (ripping out a whole firewall anyone?) >> >> now this is not about me pushing e.g. nginx as an apache >> replacement in base. before these very usable alternatives >> i was quite happy to have a reliable web server in base, >> just like anyone else. but for me it's really time to move on. >> > > so which linux distro are you moving to? > > >
If the real question is "which unix has a reliable web server in base?" , then he cannot move anywhere and should stay on OpenBSD
