* Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au) wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:19, Stephen Frost wrote: > > No, don't. If admins want it that way, admins will set it up that way. > > By default, since the vast majority of people will *not* have bind > > installed, do *not* require everyone have a user they will not use. > > 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... > > named is more popular than all news servers combined, more popular than > majordomo or uucp ever were (and they are much less popular now), more > popular than msql... These other programs have their accounts in everone's > /etc/passwd, why not named? It's pretty simple, really, those packages are wrong but they're legacy. They should probably be changed but I imagine it gets kind of hairy because of how it *used* to be. The last thing we need to do is to perpetuate that. I disagree with your cliam that the majority of Linux machines will have bind installed. There are two machines in my house of around 30 machines that have bind. There is one machine in my lab of 20 machines at work that has bind. I'd hardly call that 'most' and I strongly doubt that my setup is 'odd'. Machines that I have set up elsewhere either for people or when helping people install their own Linux system (End users) have not had bind installed. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpuDfNYeuOUO.pgp
Description: PGP signature