Re: DNS servers
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:42:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > Whereas yours is entirely the usual "BIND RULES DJB SUX0RS!" variety.
> actually, if you bothered looking, you'd find that i've said "bind
> sucks" on numerous occasions. i said that because it's true - bind does
> suck. unfortunately, djbdns sucks too, for different reasons.
agreed, you said: "BIND sucks".
> > Why should he support something he disagrees with in entirety?
> because there's a vague possibility that he might be interested in
> making a difference out in the real world rather than just claiming
> perfection from his own ivory tower.
Well, he is interested in making a difference, but also interested in
not making too much of a compromise and get his achievemenst stained.
And fwiw, there are some people who find that his software makes a
difference. If you read his statement about Namezero, that should
prove most other statements about the non-usabiltiy of djbdns wrong.
> I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT MY ZONE FILES. I WANT TO USE THEM AS-IS.
There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
The only other way of using BIND zone files as-is, at least for the
BIND-4 variety, is to import them into Microsoft's DNS server as
shipped with NT4, then fiddle with the registry to make it ignore its
internal data base. Happy camping...
You don't seem to listen to the large number of arguments that have
been brought forward against the BIND format, and in favour of
just about any other format. You also choose to ignore the tools
available to manipulate the applications data, whether stored in
a data base, LDAP directory, or in a text file, anyway.
> What is so difficult to understand about this simple concept? is it
> just that djbdns can't do it, therefore it must be wrong?
No, all other Unix DNS software I am aware of can't do it as well.
There could be a reason in _that_. How do you think about the
multitude of SQL- and LDAP-backed DNS- (or anything-) servers out
there? That's all crap because they don't work with BIND zone files
> i couldn't be bothered reading the rest of your message, let alone
> responding to it. here is why:
Ok. When do you enter your pensions? Which company in AU do we need
> a lot longer than you. i started as a programmer 20 years ago and
> started doing systems admin stuff almost immediately. about 15 years ago
> [ much more bragging about being stone-aged clipped ]
I'm also some 20+ years in computing. Call me a newbie if you like.
> i've performed more upgrades and software & hardware transitions than
> you could even imagine - they have been successful transitions precisely
Then you know the value of a lab, and if you're worth your money, you
have one, too. No need to break production systems. Take your time to
check it out beforehand...
> because i am cautious about radical changes to the point of being
> paranoid and plan everything out before i start, including a disaster
> recovery plan for reverting to the previous working config. i am
Me too. So you've tested all things thoroughly in your lab, then
roll the change out. What's the problem?
> speaking from long years of hard-won experience, which is worth just a
> little bit more than overblown newbie opinion like yours.
Or mine... thank you.
> how do i know that you're a newbie? your shrill insistence that you
> have all the answers is a dead giveaway.
There are still some who insist that only punch cards can give you
long-term reliable data storage. You're one of them.