Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:34:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Glenn Johnson <gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/isc-dhcp - Imported sources Message-ID: <200007030034.SAA02496@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <395F9B93.E658486F@softweyr.com> References: <20000628101529.A63423@node1.cluster.srrc.usda.gov> <200006281721.KAA03680@john.baldwin.cx> <20000629002926.A17817@gforce.johnson.home> <395F9B93.E658486F@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Being a server platform does not mean that you have to ship with lots > > > of servers, it means you provide a stable, well-preforming environment > > > on which one can run those servers. > > > > Agreed, but some would say that FreeBSD *does* ship with a lot of > > servers: sendmail, bind, sshd, rlogind, rshd, telnetd, ftpd, ntpd, nis, > > nfs, uucp, ... > > Many of the above are needed on all network-connected systems; dhcpd is > typically needed only on one server per DHCP "domain". I disagree. Bind, ntpd, uucp, and one can stretch the argument to include sendmail if you squint a bit are also very much 'one per domain' servers as well. As an anti-bloatist, I would argue that DHCP isn't appropriate in FreeBSD. As far as that goes, I think uucp should go out the window, as I bet than less than 1% of the user base has a use for it. On the other hand, I install a DHCP server one the 'one' machine in my system that runs the single copy of bind, ntpd, and sendmail, so I wouldn't argue too much if we included it in the base system. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007030034.SAA02496>