-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In that case, why don't we standardize on his daemontools and ucspi-tcp
package? It would one-up us over the NetBSD folks with their shiny
new "rc.d" toy, and everyone would love a setup that finally got rid
of inetd.conf for something more flexible and secure. I'd be willing
to modify apache to work with daemontools svc.
I like the elegant simplicity of dispensing with getopt() in favor of
getenv() that I see throughout djb code. I like the way he factors
things into small enough peices that its easy to hook in your own
little apps to accomplish this customization or that customization.
I wish I understood licenses better and why this isn't feasible right
now. Best to both of you; OpenBSD and djb.
Jonathan
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Heikki Korpela wrote:
> > > In fact, why don't you just use the BSD licence ?
> > http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html
>
> OpenBSD is not the OS with a colored panama. (Ruthlessly stolen from
> a CVS commit log.)
>
> In OpenBSD, it's more important for to have a consistent layout
> through the system, especially the ports, than to have a consistent
> layout for each package throuhgout all the systems.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBO4u/lsK9HT/YfGeBAQEIKQP9H76NPYKnPRcS0nrtp9ywjxVM8GCxVyO3
FwS+9BB3+rBXXPGej9q1s/vOCpKkx98GXun1kte+IyvLYoRnLHpoAy0BNMUSQ7Ma
wgjPvqkteyIM5bmY1QhiXgwmAWWIYiClSoqlJe8CUoVsveW9cWDsnpRPXAmEnul5
AbZBTMgZve0=
=UCWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|