On Jun 14 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've encountered this some too; it's an interesting psychological
> effect that I think slows the adoption of qmail a bit. Because
> qmail is so modular and actually exposes its internal interfaces to
> the degree of having separate binaries running, people think that
> it's considerably more complicated than sendmail (I keep hearing
> this). This is, of course, really not true; sendmail does way more
> inside that big monolithic black box. But because it hides all the
> complexity, it scores some marketing points.
Indeed.
A similar feeling actually comes from the (unjustified) myth
that modularization creates a unecessary overhead and,
therefore, is the source of an evil, intrinsic inefficiency.
With the clean, modular and efficient design of qmail, Dan has
given a counter-example to the "common sense".
With bad design, even superior ideas can be worse than
inferior ones moderately well-done, while they are always a
win if done correctly.
[]s, Roger...
P.S.: I was reading the homepage of Postfix <www.postfix.org> this
Monday and found this, regarding our subject:
"Other mailers such as qmail use a rigid hierarchy of programs that
run other programs in a fixed order and throw them away after
use. This approach gives better insulation, at the cost of some
process creation overhead and inter-process communication."
-- Taken from http://www.postfix.org/architecture.html
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
