On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 11:02 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
> I think it would be nice to feel like to owner/author of qmail was 
> actually behind it.   And to do that, he should be improving upon it - 
> that is, accepting at least the patches that we all use.  Obviously it's 
> not a complete product, unless you can point me to a substantial 'stock 
> qmail' userbase.
> Nobody can even provide binaries for the 'lessers' among us - so they 
> will never use it.

<my rant>

These couple lines are the crux of the problem for my higher ups. They
feel that there is not central driving force behind qmail on a fast
moving internet. It lacks user and general support base. It doesn't come
with our linux distribution, and it can't receive support from
packagers. If they want qmail support its one more vendor in the loop. 
I've got to interface with the business guys. 

Qmail's licensing is prohibitive to it's long term viability and Dan
Bernstein will drive his own software out of existence by not being a
responsible maintainer. I believe he wants it this way. 

5 nay 10 years ago almost... qmail was the bomb sniggety in a world of
defunct sendmails. It was fast, efficient, and simple to administer. Now
it shows its age. It's apparent that it isn't well maintained except for
a community that strongly believes in it, and for good reason. The
problems with qmail are not technical, they're political.

</myrant>

ne ways, I have to migrate away from my beloved qmail. I'm not too happy
about it. 


Reply via email to