to somthing called DNS poison [google.com]. Why? Because system administrators are anal and fail to realize that software like BIND is not written to be secure. Hell, DNS was not even designed for such a large internet. The original DNS implementors were bad programmers and designers.
BIND9... don't get your hopes up. The BIND company sells paches for their software. Meaning that if you don't pay them money then you're going to be running an errornouse DNS server.
Still most people use BIND for two reasons: no one wants
>Until a true open source alternative to BIND appears, we're stuck with it.
By "true alternative" do you mean it has to be GPLable?
Get real. djbdns' source is 100% available for you to look at and patch to your hearts content. If you find an error, send a fix to DJB and he'll add it after review. He'll even give you $500 [cr.yp.to] as a reward for your hard work. Find me a GPL program that makes a
Incorrect, it is open source. It isn't GPL. There's a big difference.
Yes, but the trolls [trollse.cx] have redubbed anything to which you can read the code "Open Source." It confuses the argument, but it makes PHB's feel better about using software not developed by a money-grubbing company (the kind they were taught to like while they were earning their MBAs).
DJB's software is Open Source. It is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, perhaps. That said, just because something is Free Software does not make it sup
You miss my point -- the whole "Open Source" movement clouds the definitions. OSI embraced the original APSL, which in many ways was more restrictive than the DJB licenses.
There are many things that are open source and not free. DJB's stuff. Quite a bit of UW mail software, etc. etc. You can't distribute a patched version of pine, either, without UW's permission.
OSI obfuscates these issue because the trolls don't get along with RMS.
You miss my point -- the whole "Open Source" movement clouds the definitions. OSI embraced the original APSL, which in many ways was more restrictive than the DJB licenses.
There are many things that are open source and not free. DJB's stuff. Quite a bit of UW mail software, etc. etc. You can't distribute a patched version of pine, either, without UW's permission.
OSI obfuscates these issue because the trolls don't get along with RMS.
Actually, the definition of "open source" used by OSI (launched
At one point in time the OSI people thought that they could defend the trademark "Open Source". They have since come to their senses, and no longer pretend to be able to do this. If you email them and ask, they will admit as much, though it doesn't look like they have included this point in their FAQ.
The opulence of the front office door varies inversely with the fundamental
solvency of the firm.
90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:4, Interesting)
BIND9... don't get your hopes up. The BIND company sells paches for their software. Meaning that if you don't pay them money then you're going to be running an errornouse DNS server.
Still most people use BIND for two reasons: no one wants
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect, it is open source.
It isn't GPL.
There's a big difference.
>Until a true open source alternative to BIND appears, we're stuck with it.
By "true alternative" do you mean it has to be GPLable?
Get real. djbdns' source is 100% available for you to look at and patch to your hearts content. If you find an error, send a fix to DJB and he'll add it after review. He'll even give you $500 [cr.yp.to] as a reward for your hard work. Find me a GPL program that makes a
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:2)
Incorrect, it is open source. It isn't GPL. There's a big difference.
The point being made is that djbdns is not open in some pretty important ways, like allowing other people to extend it for example.
Bernstein is a total control freak, he demands that people install and use his code in very specific ways...
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:2)
Yes, but the trolls [trollse.cx] have redubbed anything to which you can read the code "Open Source." It confuses the argument, but it makes PHB's feel better about using software not developed by a money-grubbing company (the kind they were taught to like while they were earning their MBAs).
DJB's software is Open Source. It is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, perhaps. That said, just because something is Free Software does not make it sup
Wrong (Score:2)
The DJB license does not do that (and even prevents modified source distribution). End of story.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
There are many things that are open source and not free. DJB's stuff. Quite a bit of UW mail software, etc. etc. You can't distribute a patched version of pine, either, without UW's permission.
OSI obfuscates these issue because the trolls don't get along with RMS.
“Open Source” and “Free Software (Score:2)
Actually, the definition of "open source" used by OSI (launched
Doub't anyone will see this, but... (Score:0)
No, they don't. Open Source is a trademark held by the OSI.
Re:Doub't anyone will see this, but... (Score:0)