Re: DNS servers
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:43:50AM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Sanders claims that I'm telling people to ignore the possibility of
that's *Mr* Sanders to you, scumbag.
i find your tone to be annoying and insulting, welcome to my killfile.
that will be all.
before you go, i'll take the time to correct a few of your lies.
> Sanders claims that the tinydns configuration syntax isn't ``any
> easier for programs'' than the BIND configuration syntax. That's
> ludicrous.
yes, it is ludicrous. words stuffed into other people's mouths and/or
selectively taken out of context often are. that's generally the reason
why lowbrow jerks resort to such underhanded tactics.
what i actually said was:
: parsing bind zonefiles is slightly more difficult than parsing tinydns.
:
: *generating* bind zonfiles, however, isn't particularly difficult. no
: more difficult than generating any other text file.
the closest thing i said to what you claim was (in an earlier message):
: it doesn't make it any easier for programs either.
: i've had no problems writing scripts to maintain either zonefiles or
: named.conf. [example of scripts i've written snipped]
in it's original context, it's nowhere near as absolute as the statement
you ascribe to me.
> Where's the equivalent of add-host for BIND zone files?
there are numerous tools available for editing bind zone files.
the fact is, though, that most people don't use them because bind zone
files are actually human-readable - you don't need a special tool to
edit them, it's easy enough to do with any text editor.
> Nate Campi pointed out a few of the complications of the BIND
> zone-file syntax that are avoided by the tinydns syntax. Sanders
> responds that ``programs should do the extra work.'' Gee: I thought he
> was claiming a moment ago that there wasn't any extra work.
that was in the same message where i said "parsing bind zone files is
slightly more difficult than tinydns", so you can't claim that you
didn't see me saying it. in other words, you've just proven yourself to
be a liar.
even here you can't resist lying by quoting me out of context. what i
actually said was:
: human readable & editable config files should be optimised for human
: use, not for machine use. programs should do the extra work to
: convert on-the-fly if required, not humans.
which has a quite different meaning than the selective excerpt you
quoted.
your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. your position is so feeble
that you can't even argue your case on it's own merits, you have to lie
about what others say and then argue against your own lies.
i'm sure you must find that extremely satisfying - a form of
intellectual masturbation akin to playing chess against yourself
so that you can cheat.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: