Bind v. TinyDNS

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 00:36 1/5/2004, you wrote:
>Doesn't Red Hat ship some "closed source" packages with its various
>Enterprise offerings? Java comes to mind.

Don't know, actually.

>Given the server focus, I'm betting they don't ship
>Flash or other more desktop-oriented packages.

RHEL Workstation?

Flash and Shockwave are two which I wish were included. Why they are not, I 
do not know. (Literally... I have no knowledge whatsoever, and thus no 
opinion, on why they are not included. I just wish they were.)

>Agreed. But if I have to add that package back in again later, I'm in no
>worse shape. That is, your argument is a good one for why open source is
>to be preferred over closed source in general, but not necessarily one
>for why closed source packages should not be included in Fedora.

/Have to/ add...? Can you help me out with an example?

TinyDNS, for example, you don't /have to/ add since you have BIND. You may 
choose to do so, that's cool. But they gave you a decent alternative. Qmail 
vs. Postfix vs. Exim vs. Sendmail vs. Courier, they gave you two good 
alternatives. Some things they can't do (not enough resources or not enough 
distribution rights).

If you mean something like a JVM or Flash, then I could stand to learn 
something, so any thoughts welcome.

>again, I think this is an argument to prefer open source, not a
>reason to keep closed source out.

I am not qualified (knowledge, information, experience) to speak of when 
they (Fedora devel) chose Open Source software and when they blocked out a 
non-Free app even when there was no suitable Open Source alternative. Again 
for education's sake, can we come up with some examples?

>My main objection is against any sort of stubborn philosophy versus what
>I would term as pragmatism. I'd like as functional of a distribution as
>I can get out of the box.

All extremists should be shot. <grin>

>But again, I have a pragmatic side, too, and I find that products which
>force users to build it themselves are great for hobbyists, but lousy
>for end users who just want to get something done. The more you can
>include, working right out of the box, the better.

I agree with that. How you get there is going to be a matter of some 
debate. But Red Hat, RPM, and other such things have made me able to use 
Linux effectively in real life, whereas I still have yet to compile my own 
anything after a good eight years of using Linux. Always remember your 
customers, I say. And Red Hat has consistently remembered me, so in some 
things I simply and happily go along with their chosen devel roadmap, 
trusting that they will attempt to continue serving me in the future as 
they have in the past.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz at simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com