"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:

> 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

This is really odd..
If you really think that OpenBSD is so bad , as you claim , why are you
wasting your time with this "Fringe Operating system with bad hardware
support "?
Get real...

Best Regards
Pedro

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