Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:35:55 -0700 From: Pete <freebsd-stable-2@voidcaptain.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base Message-ID: <4ABAA2CB.9030404@voidcaptain.com> In-Reply-To: <864oqu1urm.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> <864oqu1urm.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote, in part: > Sergey Vinogradov <boogie@lazybytes.org> writes: >> I always wondered about are sendmail >> and bind9. These are pretty heavy, and definitely are not used in ever= y >> single installation. Maybe someday I'll see sendmail and bind9 in port= s >> instead of base system. And yes, I know about WITHOUT_BIND=3D and >> WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=3D :) > 2) Sendmail is used at least twice a day + once a week + once a month o= n > every single FreeBSD installation in the world except those where th= e > admin has intentionally installed and configured another MTA. That is to say, it's used by all systems that choose to keep using it. Many don't. > 3) Both BIND and Sendmail have strong historical ties to BSD, and a lot= > of users would be very surprised to find them missing from the next > release. User surprise was not a sufficient reason not to remove Perl. "Missing" does not seem like the right word to describe an application easily installed from ports. > 4) The FreeBSD project has strong ties to and good working relationship= s > with the people and organizations who write and maintain BIND and > Sendmail, ensuring that they are well integrated into our codebase, > that any concerns we should have about them are given serious > consideration, that we always receive ample advance notification of > any know problems, etc. This would be equally true and valuable if the programs were to be moved to ports. > 5) Both BIND and Sendmail are mature, robust, highly regarded, actively= > maintained pieces of software with strong developer and user > communities. Unbound, DMA, or whatever it is you would replace them= > with can only dream of enjoying a fraction of the respect that BIND > and Sendmail command in the industry. Some don't need them and would like a system without them. It's not about respect or newer alternatives. > 6) This discussion comes up with depressing regularity. The arguments > on both sides are always the same, as is the conclusion: you can hav= e > BIND and Sendmail when you pry them out of Beastie's cold, dead > fingers. Now go write some code. Perhaps this discussion comes up with depressing regularity because some "cold dead fingers"-type people seem a bit obstinate about an obvious streamlining. >=20 > DES
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ABAA2CB.9030404>