Re: Potentially Predatory Pre-Announcement of Possible Vaporware (zinq-djbdns-0.01)

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
>  What was it motivated by?
>  Look at the obvious coding style differences between autoconf and
> djbdns. Since you're working on djbware, I think it's safe to assume
> you like DJB's coding style. Why then succumb to the bloated side and
> create some unholy hybrid?

    Bloated?  The autotooled version has *less* code.  I don't see
what the build system has to do with coding style.  The generated
Makefile produces the same executables as Dan's Makefile would.

>  As for DNSSEC: for heaven's sake, please, no.
>  DNSSEC does not work. DNSSEC will not work. With all the resources
> that the ISC, and AFAIK the US government, have invested into DNSSEC,
> it would be working *now* if it was meant to work.
>  But it's not. It's flawed by design.

    When a signed root zone has actually been publicaly deployed, it
will be time to talk DNSSEC.

>  DJB's policy is: do not implement or use things that are flawed by
> design.
>  This policy has kept the code clean, secure and small. Please do not
> go against it, no matter how much political pressure you're submitted
> to.

    I'm not DJB.

>  It's okay to not implement something that can only work in the mind
> of a few people, no matter how influential those people may be.

    If something will make the Internet a better place, I may support
it.  I am not convinced this will be the case for DNSSEC.  I am also
not convinced that this will *not* be the case.  With adequate thrust
and sufficient directional control, pigs can be made to fly.
    You seem to have mistaken me for somebody important enough to
pressure politically.  This is not the case.