[NCLUG] New linux server

[J. Paul Reed]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Sean Reifschneider wrote:

> So, you want to talk technical reasons?

Finally... some meat to your argument...

>    Using .qmail files.
>
> I've alread addressed that before.  It's not a weakness, it's one of
> qmail's strengths, and if you don't like it you don't have to use them.
> There are handfuls of ways to not have to use them...

And some people don't see it as a "strength." The fact that you're
initially forced to use them is what bothers me.

And if you don't want to use them, it's on *you* to go find fastfoward or
dotforward or whatever you need and patch qmail. If fastforward or
dotforward is so wonderful, why doesn't DJB build them right into Qmail?

The first example of DJB limiting what you can do to the way he wants you
to do it.

>    That he installs things in "non-standard" places.
>
> Define "standard".  Back when he started writing qmail, HP and Sun had
> fairly different file-system layouts -- so selecting "/var/qmail" doesn't
> sound like such a bad idea.  Having supported Qmail on quite a few
> different system types, I can tell you that knowing qmail is going to be
> in "/var/qmail" has made things significantly easier when somone calls up
> in a panic because their SunOS 4 mail server is freaking out.  Or BSD/OS.

Yeah, because 'locate qmail' is too hard.

Creating a new standard because you don't like the current one is what
caused the fragmentation of the Unix market (among other things); I'll
remember to thank DJB for that attitude next time I see him.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that his license prevents you from
fixing his stupidity; that is, you can't go and make qmail run from
/usr/local/sbin or /var/spool/qmail or whatever and distribute those
changes, because that would be against his precious license.

>    That he has to reinvent the wheel.
>
> If you want to run qmail from inetd and /etc/rc.d/init.d, do it...  When
> inetd starts choking on high load, think about replacing it with
> tcpserver.  When your mail server dies (which is DAMN rare under qmail,
> but still) and doesn't re-start, you may want to put it under
> daemontools.  You *DO NOT* have to though.

Right, but suddenly all of DJB's high and mighty claims about Qmail are
"null and void" if you're not running tcpserver, CDB, daemontools, djb-dns,
etc., etc., etc.

Which is (one of) my real problems with Qmail; DJB wants you to run your
system his way before he'll guarentee you anything. I'm surprised he hasn't
started a DJB/Linux distribution. I'm sure by now, he's had a chance to
replace all those "crappy" GNU tools with his superior (and incompatible)
DJB versions.

>    The license
>
> Not a technical decision...

But still a very important business one.

> Since you bring it up, has Postfix gotten around it's licensing issues in
> which IBM was specifically saying they may retract your ability to use
> Postfix at some point down the line?  You mention the implied ability for
> DJB to do this as a large reason why you don't use Qmail -- why is it ok
> for Postfix to be subject to it?

It's not; and I challenge you to find such language in the Postfix license
agreement.

The first paragraph says:

    a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
    grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright
    license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
    publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such
    Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and
    object code form.

That's *way* more than Qmail/DJB gives you.

> Oh, and your linking to Rick Moen's ravings about qmail really doesn't do
> anything for me.  Dan's response to that page is:

I've read DJB's response, and (surprise surprise), it's not doing it for
me, either.

>    Q) Rick Moen says you can revoke these permissions by changing your web
>    page!
>
>    A) Is that a question?
>
>    Rick Moen is an idiot. (In case there are several Rick Moens in the
>    world: I'm talking about rick at linuxmafia.com.) Feel free to ask your
>    attorney to explain waivers to you.

Right; that's DJB's answer to everything.

Instead of answering the concern with a real answer, he just calls people
names.

Which is actually pretty dangerous, if you think about it. There was a
thread awhile ago on the qmail developer discussion lists that he shut down
by threating to unsubscribe people from when they brought up a concern, he
answered with his "You're stupid, I don't wanna talk about this" and they
pressed the issue, and he said "Be quiet about it, or I'll unsub you."

Sounds like the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

> Based on the discussions I've had with Rick, I'd have to agree with DJB
> here...  Rick was part of the reason I did the benchmarking of the IDE
> versus SCSI drives which I posted about last month.

That discussion is really unrelated to this one; I don't know why you bring
it up.  You're attacking Rick's character, which has nothing to do with
this discussion, and (shouldn't) have anything to do with your argument.

But since you did, the fact that you point it out shows what DJB should of
done instead of saying "look at the monkey over here... here... see the
monkey..." instead of answering Rick's (legitimate and honestly posed)
question.

People make mistakes, and you proved him wrong.

Again, more than DJB has done.

> Anyway, back to the topic at hand...  Are there any other technical
> reasons you have for not liking qmail?

Yeah, a couple... but the only one really worth mentioning was put very
nicely by Mr. Moen (please don't respond by calling him an idiot):

"[Qmail has] pioneered the art of mail delivery as a Denial of Service
attack."

And he's quite right... let's say you're sending mail to 50 people
@yahoo.com or even @tummy.com; Qmail will open 50 (simultaneous)
connections to yahoo or tummy, whereas Postfix (and Sendmail, for that
matter) get it right: 1 connection, 50 To: commands.

My other mildly technical issue is that I am fearful of running software
written by someone who has such disregard for the RFCs; there are some
(portions of) RFCs DJB has decided not to implement in his software because
he "doesn't feel like it" and doesn't like the RFC.

Well, I'm sorry, but DJB isn't the only smart person on the planet, and
there were a lot of smart people working on this Internet thing before he
showed up... I don't know where he gets off thinking his his ideas are so
much better than everyone else's.

You remember that anti-social kid on the playground who would take his ball
and bat home if everyone else didn't play exactly by his rules, which, of
course, weren't the "standard" rules by which the game was played? And he'd
say you were a "poo-poo head" if you called him on it?

That kid grew up to by DJB.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't want to use software written by that kid.

I'm done now.

Later,
Paul
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    J. Paul Reed            preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
    What's the point in being nuts if you can't have a little fun?
                                   -- John Nash, Jr., A Beautiful Mind