From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 23 22:56:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA01106566B for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:56:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable-2@voidcaptain.com) Received: from mx4.x15.net (mx4.x15.net [69.55.237.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA2D8FC14 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:56:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from j1.x15.net [63.196.213.76] by mx4.x15.net with ESMTP id 20090312b-1MqaRm-000B6E-Fy; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:36:26 +0000 Message-ID: <4ABAA2CB.9030404@voidcaptain.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:35:55 -0700 From: Pete MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> <864oqu1urm.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <864oqu1urm.fsf@ds4.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:03:32 +0000 Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:56:25 -0000 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote, in part: > Sergey Vinogradov 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