Again, what should be counted? Should you include rsync? Should you include utility programs like check-namedconf, axfr-get, rbldns, walldns, walldns-conf, etc.?
You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
servicing requests. That is, IMO, bind's only major failing. Too
much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
wants rndc), and no way to compile without them. If you read Bruce
Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
"Amount of code" is.
All I really want is to "configure --minimal && make && make
install" and not have to fix ISC's ill thought-out defaults (like
/usr/local/etc on Solaris...).
Using bind 8 and 9 but still looking for something better,
You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
servicing requests. That is, IMO, bind's only major failing. Too
much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
wants rndc), and no way to compile without them. If you read Bruce
Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
"Amount of code" is.
While I don't disagree about lines of code, in general, I will remind you
that "nobody" and "everyone" are not sets that you may speak for. I like
rndc (although I preferred ndc). I've been using BIND since BIND 4.{mumble}
(currently at BIND 9 for those machines I retain responsibility for), and
I'd surely rather have all of BIND's little idiosyncrasies that to deal
with AD (now *there's* a nightmare).
You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
servicing requests. That is, IMO, bind's only major failing. Too
much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
wants rndc), and no way to compile without them. If you read Bruce
Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
"Amount of code" is.
Ok, just came from the pub so i'm making this a short and simple one:
I need&&want rndc!
Using bind 8 and 9 but still looking for something better,
Doing that too, we could as well just kill ourselves if we were not
ever looking for something better than we already have. Thats called
life.
How do you add zones to your servers? We certainly don't connect to a shell on all of them for simple configuration tasks. Network shares and rndc make short work of most DNS tasks.
are the two most frequently used DNS tools used by our support staff. For automated tasks, writing a zone file to disk from the database on change and issuing an rndc reload is very useful.
On the djb vs. BIND debate, for database driven zones, just output BIND format files (or djb if that floats your boat) from your database. Calling the actual zone files the "database" doesn't make sense anyway. If you manage your information well, the file format of the server application doesn't really matter. The security, performance and standards compliance matter most - to us anyway.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
servicing requests. That is, IMO, bind's only major failing. Too
much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
wants rndc), and no way to compile without them. If you read Bruce
Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
"Amount of code" is.
Ah, but how do you know what are the little used features? We use rndc
a lot, just as we used ndc with BIND 8.
personally, i liked ndc better. (but ndc was the last bind code i ever wrote,
so perhaps i'm only pining for better days when i wrote code rather than just
e-mail.)
> Using bind 8 and 9 but still looking for something better,
Doing that too, we could as well just kill ourselves if we were not ever
looking for something better than we already have. Thats called life.
speaking for ISC, our life isn't about finding something better than BIND,
but rather, making BIND better than it is. some of you are already
helping, by sending code, paying for ISC BIND support, and/or being part of
the BIND Forum. however, let me mix a metaphor and throw open the
gauntlet-- if you know of a way that BIND can be improved, please tell us!
(there's probably no need to cc nanog@ on such suggestions, but suit yourself.)
