[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian 13 - no virtual machines



On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 19:50:10 +0200, Michael wrote:
> On 9/29/25 19:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 19:27:04 +0200, Michael wrote:
> > > 1. How can I achieve that bind is not started? If I kill the process
> > > "/usr/sbin/named -f -u bind"   with  "kill -9 1227", it is immediately
> > > restarted with a different process ID.
> > Define your goal.  Do you *ever* want to use it?  If so, under what
> > conditions?  If you want bind9 to listen on one interface and dnsmasq
> > on another, then you've already been given part of the recipe for that.
> > 
> > If you *never* want to use bind9, just remove the package.
> > 
> > (Why is it even installed in the first place?)
> > 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I have no idea what bind9 is used for. It was part of the default
> installation of Debian 12 or maybe even earlier, when I migrated von 11 to
> 12 - or 10 to 11...
> 
> Same with dnsmasq: It was part the standard installation(s).

Neither of these statements is correct.  It might be on your system,
but it's not part of a Standard install, nor is it a default package.

> I can delete the bind package, if this could help. But I have no idea why it
> is part of my system and what consquences a deletion will have.

bind9 is a DNS server and/or DNS resolver.  It runs as a service, and
it either serves up DNS lookups (name -> IP, IP -> name) for domains
which you configure, or it acts as a sort of "proxy" that will connect
to the public Internet's DNS servers and retrieve DNS information for you.

Most people do not need this package.  Most people just use whatever DNS
resolver services are provided by their router, or by their Internet
Service Provider, or they use a public DNS nameserver such as 1.1.1.1 or
8.8.8.8.

The fact that you don't even know what this IS tells me you don't need it.

Please just do yourself a huge favor and remove the bind9 package.  Your
error message will go away, and dnsmasq might even work, if that's a
thing you still want to use.


Reply to: