* Bob Proulx (bob@proulx.com) wrote: > Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> [2002-09-16 18:52:02 +0200]: > > I think that the majority of Linux machines have bind installed. I don't > > recall the last time I installed Linux without bind, it would be sometime > > before 1996... > > Agreed. I consider bind locally a standard installation. Over a > thousand machines at my employer and each run a local bind daemon with > a forwarding configuration to our top level servers. We tried > switching from that to a centralized DNS server but there were > problems with centralization and we switched back to having a local > named. BIND is designed to be distributed and works well that way. > There are many reasons to run a caching name server. Here are a > couple. There are alot of reasons to not one run too. There is no overriding reason or need for named to have an entry in base-passwd. It's simple enough for the package to add the user. Even ssh does this, and for much the same reason. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpS6zGQsK_3O.pgp
Description: PGP signature