|
|
|
|
|
|
by bmir-alum-007
3956 days ago
|
|
|
So true. We would consider OpenBSD if it ran on AWS and stably supported ZFS. (We use FreeBSD with PF and ZFS.) "NIH syndrome" resulted in signify rather than using normal, proven tools like GPG which Debian-base distros use for package management. |
|
|
It probably could if Amazon wanted to support it. It does already run on Xen (which is what AWS is built on, IIRC).
> "NIH syndrome" resulted in signify rather than using normal, proven tools like GPG
Whoa there, pardner! Let's not be so quick to label every attempt at improving the selection of software in a given category as "NIH syndrome", eh? By that logic, "NIH syndrome" resulted in GnuPG rather than using normal, proven tools like the original PGP :)
GnuPG is great. Don't get me wrong. I use it all the time, even on OpenBSD. GnuPG is also a big program. It has a lot of features, and tends to be very complex. In the context of package signing, most of those features - like encryption, webs of trust, all that jazz - are way overkill; the OpenBSD folks just needed a tool that can apply a digital signature and verify that signature, and signify does that job pretty darn well.
There's also the fact that GnuPG is GPL-licensed, and OpenBSD has a pretty strict policy against including copyleft software. The implications of copyleft might not be important to you or me or the dog next door, but they're very important for the OpenBSD folks.