* Malcolm Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001130 18:47]:
> I have been watching the many hundreds of lines of silliness over the
> last day or so. Folks these arguments make no sense. To me its a case of
> the more newbie's the better.
ObFlame: IT'S ``newbies'' MORON.
;)
> Because, that means more people spread the word, more corporations, more
> installs, more cock-up's, more success stories, more work for the
> experts, more input from the field, release 1.04. That's the foundation
> of the open source movement.
(Yikes, what's a cock-up? Doesn't sound like something *I'd* strive for...)
Anyway, it doesn't seem like Dan is completely sold on what you term ``the
foundation of the open source movement.'' I venture to say that many open
source people relish the idea of everyone using open source software; I
don't believe that Dan (or many on this list) thinks that qmail is for
everyone. That's not to say qmail isn't the best solution for almost every
situation, but it isn't the best solution for every mail admin.
It's been said before, but if you are brand-spanking-new to *nix and
sysadmin stuff, you probably don't have any business running a production
mail server. Yes, many people inherit the job, but they need to display some
/cajones/ in telling their bosses that they aren't equipped to do the job
(at least, at their current level of knowledge).
The true strength of open source software is not having a goal of X
installations or having Y drooling followers of ``the cause''. (The growing
popularity of Linux has largely perpetuated this myth.) The true strength is
having all of the necessary documentation at ones fingertips--the source
code. It means being able to modify programs to do *exactly* what you need,
when what you need isn't something the original author knew how to do, knew
to include, or wanted to support.
For having all of the necessary documentation, qmail is head and shoulders
above almost any package available, at least that I've found. Its
simplicity, together with the documentation (both included and
user-contributed) and e-mail archives, make it almost entirely possible to
configure without any interaction whatsoever with supporting people. But
yeah, it assumes you know a little bit. If that doesn't float your boat, you
might consider using sendmail; it's installed on RedHat by default and they
would, no doubt, be willing to hold your hand during installation. (For a
price, of course...) Or simply outsourcing your e-mail to Critical Path or
the like.
> That's the way open source is supposed to work. Make it open, spread the
> word, provide a community of support, encourage others. Soon it can't be
> stopped - Linux style.
As an example, many Linux distros are deadnut simple to install these days.
However, ask a fairly inane question on the linux-kernel mailing list (say,
``How can I support USB in my kernel? I did make but it didn't work.'') and
see how friendly your open source Linux community is. :)
> Forget the grammar, forget the spelling, forget the soup nazi's -
> realize where the bread is buttered. Kill the newbie's and you kill the
> product.
qmail does not rely on newbies for success. Nor does it rely on *any*
popular demands, ultimately. If it did, it would probably end up hugely
bloated and inefficient and insecure with tons of ``features'' because one
person thought they were great. (See...well, just about any other mailer out
there. :) It is programmer/author-driven FAR more than it is
consumer-driven, and I would venture to say that it will stay that way.
qmail succeeds because Dan is a darn good programmer, and because it is just
elegant.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
"A good messenger expects to get shot."
--- Larry Wall
