Re: posible bug in daemontools

> Any more questions?

 Yes.

 Why the personal "fanboy" attacks? They're obviously not true. I maintain
my own C programming libraries, *based* on DJB's code, but with so many
additions, patches and rewrites that it's not DJB's code anymore - it's
mine. If DJB was a god and wrote perfect code, I certainly wouldn't have
to do this, would I ?
 If you believe I'm telling Mark to stop thinking and join the cult,
you're completely missing the point. I'm advising him to START thinking.
If he's going to distribute a djbdns-based package, is it so unreasonable
to ask him to understand *why* djbdns was written like it is ? If he
doesn't like the design decisions, nobody's preventing him from writing
his own DNS package, that has nothing to do with djbdns whatsoever.

 Why do you think DJB's software is more disrespectful towards users
than mainstream Unix software ?
 If it's only a question of "people are used to widely deployed tools,
not following these habits is disrespectful to them", then I'm afraid
Unix is very disrespectful and we should all be using Microsoft Windows.
 I don't know what you qualify as respect. To me, respecting the users
means distributing quality software, with as few bugs as possible.
Every security hole in a piece of software is HUGELY disrespectful to
every sysadmin who trusted that software to work. Buggy software is
insanely more disrespectful than software that doesn't fit in the mold.
 In my view, compared to other software, djbware is incredibly respectful.

 I *never* pretended djbdns was perfect, or that it should not be patched.
I've patched it more than I want to admit. I'm in the process of rewriting
the libdns (because it performs a lot of unneeded memory allocations).
What I said is that it was thoughtfully designed. I'm not sure how anyone
can disagree with this.

 And yeah, I do advocacy. Have a look at the GNU libtool code, or the
OpenSSL API. And tell me they're not a pile of crap, I mean, disrespectful
software.

-- 
 Laurent