Tobias Weingartner writes:
> Please read your own license, and then read the goals for the
> ports/OpenBSD system. Do you agree they are in conflict?

Netscape 4, which doesn't even have public source code, has been in the
OpenBSD ports for years. So the religious argument doesn't hold water.

The real issue is that the OpenBSD distributors insist on moving
daemontools out of /package, while I insist that they not do so.

I've provided ample justification for my position. My web pages contain
extensive documentation of problems for users and detailed explanations
of how /package solves those problems.

The OpenBSD response has been circular: ``It doesn't fit because it
isn't mentioned in hier. It isn't mentioned in hier because we don't
allow it. We don't allow it because it doesn't fit.''

When I ask how the OpenBSD position helps users, system administrators,
programmers, etc., I get (1) more of the circular responses, (2) more of
the hypocritical religious nonsense, (3) idiotic comments on the level
of ``following a symlink takes CPU time, yick,'' and (4) a bunch of
anonymous phone calls and forged mailing-list subscriptions.

I don't care what actually goes into OpenBSD. It's a fringe operating
system with bad hardware support; it's a barely noticeable part of my
user base. I don't trust OpenBSD's security claims after the latest
``audited'' sendmail security hole, so I won't be installing any new
versions on my machines. My goal in this discussion was simply to find
out whether OpenBSD's decisions were based on rational evaluations of
user needs. Evidently they were not.

---Dan

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]