>
> Maybe we just have too high an opinion of your intelligence?
>
In that case, the web site should bear the following disclaimer:
Warning - this site is only intended for expert qmail users. Please get
bashed on the mailing list for help, and maye after you're all bloody and
hurting, we may help you out. Or, just go f* off and figure out yourself.
Or use sendmail.
Hey, I *LIKE* qmail. It's pretty easy to use. It's definitely easy to
build, and you don't have to know m4. I had no idea that you could use it
with inetd, however (based on the qmail home page), and I was simply trying
to make the following point (to get back to the beginning of the thread)
qmail gets bad press because of exactly this. We never fix the public
image, the web site is not clear on such issues, and we just bash people if
they don't understand what the hell is going on.
> > Or is the intent of Russ and DJB to get us all downloading and using
> > software which we all still argue about licensing over, which
> in the end
> > they will come out and charge us for back usage or get the hell off?
I agree this is absurd. That's why I wrote it. I don't think that this
will actually happen, but if you'd step back and take a look around you,
it's easy to see how some people (and lets face facts, here, most internet
lusers are paranoid and often delusional) could draw this conclusion.
I know you don't CARE what non-qmail users think of qmail. It's pretty
obvious. At least in this forum, it is. Are you this non-committal about
licensing when you're trying to sell one of your prospective clients a
qmail-based solution? Or is Crynwr just a front? I mean, if anyone here
knows anything definitive about the qmail licensing scheme, as well as
others, it would be you. And, based on the amount of traffic it gets on
this list, the topic should be in bright bold red blinking letters at the
top of the home page.
>Get your own warm fuzzies, quit trying to take ours.
I'm trying to, but you seem to bent on preventing me from getting them.
