Re: rc and smf

[Dan Melomedman <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim wrote:
> By your definition, MessageWall is broken.  Stop trying to figure
> out what can be done to patch its brokenness.  What if MessageWall
> received an mail, acknowledges to the sender, but before sending

MessageWall doesn't return OK to sender unless it has passed the
message to the server, and the server gave it OK. But this whole
MessageWall discussion is moot, I was trying to understand effects of
overcommit allocation on MessageWall and dnscache, not the fact that
it's using memory for messages as a temporary, preallocated storage.

> Again, I am a huge fan of DJB tools but so what?  There's nothing in
> DragonflyBSD or *BSD to keep you from using these tools.  Some people

My hope is that since Dragonfly is such a new project, it will replace
legacy crap like init and syslog with better architected tools (to some
extent, backwards compatibility with old syslog is required, of course).
Other Unixes will see the benefits, and will also follow. Many will benefit
if that happens for many years to come. Instead, many people on this list
don't even understand the benefits of service supervision for instance.
It's sad, really. Conformity is more important than innovation, I guess.

> (see http://cr.yp.to/serverinfo.html).  So your trying to use him as
> an example in argument FOR Linux fails miserably, IMHO.

Bullshit. I've never done that. If I have, then where?