Re: bind8 vs bind9
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:28:13PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> writes:
>
> > Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source.
> > Perhaps you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
>
> They originally meant the same thing:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>
> What do you think open source means now? Why do you think that?
Whoo hoo, political grandstanding.
To me, "open source" (the buzzword) has always been BS. open source
means you can get at the source code and change it to your heart's
content. None of DJB's software precludes that, it's redistribution
that's troublesome. Most of the contention seemns to revolve around
DJB's somewhat controversial ideas regarding software licenses.
I use djbdns ... it's solid and dependable. It can be a PITA to
upgrade and maintain. I spend a lot less time screwing around with
DNS than I did when I ran BIND ...
I also run qmail, but I'm not as happy with that. Same reasons apply;
it's hard to upgrade and maintain. Since an MTA has many more
features than a DNS server, this is a real issue for me. I'm seriously
considering moving to postfix even though there have already been a few
postfix advisories.
If you're interested in turning this into a free software vs. open
source debate, I'll tell you right now I'm not interested. I fully
support Debian's ideals regarding free (as in freedom) software, and
my choice to use djbdns and wmail were based on disatisfaction with
the free software available at the time. Now that postfix looks like
a contender, I'm considering it. Once someone comes up with a
replacement for the monolithic pig known as BIND, I'll consider that
as well.
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-- William Pitt
Reply to: