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
"Now, if he doesn't like your patch, you can post the patch on the internet. You can even put it alongside the source. You can even make an autopatch program that will patch djbdns during make so that dumb users can handle the process"
Can you make binaries of your new program and distribute them? If not, I can't see how you call this open-source. It cuts off all of the distributors from carrying patched versions that work with their own distribution, instead of whatever way that djb wants.
>Can you make binaries of your new program and distribute them? If not, I can't see how you call this open-source.
Let's dissect what you just said and turn it into english words.
Can you make a car out of it? If not, I can't see how it's an airplane.
A binary is not source, unless the software was built using machine language. This project wasn't. Therefore, the entire idea of suggesting that limiting the distribution of binaries somehow impacts the freeness of the source is a red herring and makes z
"You would be correct in saying this project is closed-binary. The difference is huge."
Open-source typically means the ability to redistribute modified binaries. Even if it doesn't (which, if you read the open-source definition, it does), the usefulness which most people attribute to open-source is lost. If you can't recombine modified binaries into a distribution of software, how "open" is it?
The open-source definition says that the software must be (a) redistributable in both source and binary forms,
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:4, Insightful)
Can you make binaries of your new program and distribute them? If not, I can't see how you call this open-source. It cuts off all of the distributors from carrying patched versions that work with their own distribution, instead of whatever way that djb wants.
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:1)
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:1)
Let's dissect what you just said and turn it into english words.
Can you make a car out of it? If not, I can't see how it's an airplane.
A binary is not source, unless the software was built using machine language. This project wasn't. Therefore, the entire idea of suggesting that limiting the distribution of binaries somehow impacts the freeness of the source is a red herring and makes z
Re:90% of the internet is valnerable ... (Score:2)
Open-source typically means the ability to redistribute modified binaries. Even if it doesn't (which, if you read the open-source definition, it does), the usefulness which most people attribute to open-source is lost. If you can't recombine modified binaries into a distribution of software, how "open" is it?
The open-source definition says that the software must be (a) redistributable in both source and binary forms,