On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:15:03AM -0500, Robin S. Socha wrote:
> * Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:25:44PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
>
> >> http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd-ports/200108/msg00462.html
>
> > Basically, [the port maintainers] are too stubborn to create a port
> > that installs according to djb's instructions, with a big fat warning
> > or *whatever*. I think it's stupid, but that's just my two eurocents.
> It's not just stupid, it's entirely brain damaged, because a port (unlike
> a package) does not fall under DJB's redistribution restrictions (the
> Debian .deb uses the same mechanism AFAIK). Whatever.
This is nonsense. The actual reason for qmail & friends removal is really
that easy: Their installation doesn't fit with hier(7), and the license
forbids changing this. So, OpenBSD respected Dan's whishes and removed qmail
& co in favor of letting people download the tar.gz themselves and compile
themselves. This way they even must see up-to-date documentation they won't
see in qmail-1.03.tar.gz for example and thus not in the port.
> > Let's not get into a flamewar here.
> Nope.
Nope.
Whoever want's to talk/argue about this issue shoul read the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] archives (URLs on www.openbsd.org/mail.html), everything
is said.
> > There is nothing wrong with djb's licensing.
> There isn't, indeed.
IMHO there is, but for the licensing issue eveything is said, too, so no new
flamewar here.
> There is, however, something fundamentally flawed
> with Theo's perception of reality,
No, it's not Theo who lost touch with reality here. It's a fine goal for an
operating system to have a consistent file system layout. OpenBSD is the
most consistent OS I came across ever, and that eases administration a
_lot_. read hier(7).
> and I'm this ->|<- close to dropping
> OpenBSD in favour of $SECURE_OTHER_UNIX on my servers.
who cares?
and you've yet to fine $SECURE_OTHER_UNIX. But no new flamewar again.
> The ipf incident
> was sad but somehow justifiable.
IPF's removal was the only possibility. read
http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html. IPF's no-modify license was totally
incompatible.
After all it was a luck, pf looks even in his early status much better than
IPF ever did.
> This is justifiable but stupid. *grrr*
It's quite logic.
--
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
