On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
Ok, the beauty of openbsd is that they're running a BIND version that's been patched to the point of no recognition. They have confidence in their skills instead of quitting before giving it a shot.
then in my opinion they aren't running BIND. why aren't they pushing back to upstream? if they have conflicts in the project's direction: "publicly fork the work and go from there". it's only fair to the original authors.
It doesn't matter if they're not running BIND. They have a real scenario where they can test functionality. This pipe dream where every package is kept vanilla for the sake of doing so is called stagnation. Tacking on a ls from over there, a pwd from over here, a kernel from elsewhere... isn't going to help anybody develop an OS into refined product. It's going to feel like a confused crossdresser of a system. What's the point of keeping packages completely disintegrated with its surroundings? They run patched gcc, perl, ksh... etc. And they happen to be the most secure widely known bsd. Would that be possible if they catered to this vanilla fetish? No. Granted, these guys probably don't have the know-how that openbsd does, but they gotta start somewhere. What better place than the randomness that is arch? Andres P