Re: merge outgoing patch

On Tuesday, March 02, 2010 05:10 AM, Mark Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Christopher Chan
> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 27, 2010 02:25 PM, Mark Johnson wrote:
>>> Don't hold your breath.  He seems content to let Matthew Dempsky carry
>>> the torch.  I suspect the only thing we'll see from djb anytime soon
>>> is maybe further releases of NaCl.
>>
>> Oh, is that why I am always blue in the face? Time to breathe. I guess the
>> naysayers got the better of DJB. But then, it is not worth it when one has
>> other more important things to do.
>
> I don't interpret his lack of (public) activity with regard to
> qmail/djbdns/etc as having anything to do with anything any
> 'naysayers' may have said.  I instead presume his
> interests/needs/available time are simply no longer aligned with those
> of the folks using his software.  I believe he wrote qmail and djbdns
> for his own use because he was disgusted with Sendmail and BIND.  I'm
> sure they're both still fine and dandy for his needs.  He has
> generously donated his work to the public domain.  We're free to
> extend it.  I don't think he owes us anything.  Wherever he is,
> whatever he's doing, I hope he's enjoying himself, personally and
> professionally.

Never said he owes us anything. It does, however, seem to me that over 
the years he has been through a lot in pushing out his software based on 
his programming principles with all those who do not like to be shown up 
as being lesser in some way coming to attack him. Add to that lot the 
really less skilled who smear DJB as being a crackpot or egotistic and 
those who would like make themselves look like they are better than DJB 
by claiming to have made modifications that make say djbdns even more 
secure and higher performing.


>
> We may yet see djbdns-1.06...I just don't think that will happen until
> he's happy with NaCl (and I hope whatever grant is funding that
> doesn't run out until then).  That's just my take, though, which is
> probably completely wrong.


Yeah, high time ISC is shown for what it is. Here's to an update to 
djbdns-1.05!