Re: 20 character limit for foldernames?

yrym_at_bgdkhk.com
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 03:16:38 GMT

|After all, one should use what suits best to his needs, there's
|some kind of habitat in this ng, telling others what they should
|use in a way, I really dislike.
|
|So, simply stay away from insisting others your solutions, when
|those seem to have some more background about *nix and their
|environment is quite different from your home box.

I suggest that you are oversensitive. I never insisted that you use
qmail. I only commented that it's good to have choice, and used the
example (as in E.g.) of qmail vs sendmail. How many bugs they each have
and whether DJB is a nice person are arguments for a different NG.

The truth is I would probably do the same in your position, after
weighing the effort of switching to a different mailer against keeping
sendmail patched. I have qmail installed at one site, and postfix at
most of the others. I regard postfix as sufficient secure that the
potential effort of keeping it updated is less than building qmail from
source or SRPMs. So I'm actually not a qmail advocate, I just like that
OSS generates alternatives. There's nothing wrong with your approach,
just your self-confidence in your position.

And yes, I am familiar with those commercial *nixes, I've been using
Unix since V7. I was on the Arpanet the day the Morris worm spread,
triggering the first of many sendmail patches. The reason commercial
*nixes are doomed is more to do with the economics of Linux than ease of
use, but everytime I have to tangle with one of those dinosaurs I am
glad OSS developed better variants of the traditional Unix tools. 

--