BIND 9.1.2 and TinyDNS???

[Brad Knowles]

At 10:27 AM +0100 6/12/01, James Raftery wrote:

>  Small tools, doing a single task and doing it well.

	That's the general Unix philosophy, but there are times when that 
philosophy fails.  Sometimes you need something as big as a C 
compiler, or a Perl interpreter, in order to get the job done -- or 
done efficiently.

	Moreover, this uses the fork-exec model of execution, which is 
precisely one of the things that many people complain most about with 
regard to older versions of BIND, and why BIND 9 now handles these 
things internally to the daemon.

>  Conversely, BIND8 has existed for long enough, and had sufficient
>  numbers of serious problems uncovered for me to have serious doubts
>  about it. I guess we're looking at the same argument but from exact
>  opposite points of view.

	We're not comparing TinyDNS against BIND 8.  We're comparing 
TinyDNS against BIND 9, which is a complete ground-up re-write of 
BIND, sharing no code with the older version.  Moreover, it is 
written with new methods of programming that help ensure that bugs 
are found and fixed early, before the code ever gets out into the 
field.

>  No idea. They're listed under "Commercial Support" at
>  http://tinydns.org/

	I'll take a look at them.

>  No contest there. But that doesn't mean one should discount a
>  mailing-list as a valid souce of support (for any software) just because
>  it's not perfect in all situations.

	Problem is, you need multiple sources of support.  There are many 
more sources of support for BIND than there are for djbdns.

>  BIND and djbdns have their own merits and demerits. I don't think either
>  deserves to be summarily dismissed.

	I disagree (obviously).  IMO, disregarding everything else, there 
are certain design decisions that were made that prevent djbdns from 
being generally useful.  There are simply too many ways in which it 
violates too many RFCs.

	Perhaps there are some very specific cases where people may 
prefer djbdns over older versions of BIND, but I see absolutely 
nothing whatsoever in djbdns that could come anywhere remotely to 
commending it over BIND 9.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

/*        efdtt.c  Author:  Charles M. Hannum <root at ihack.net>          */
/*       Represented as 1045 digit prime number by Phil Carmody         */
/*     Prime as DNS cname chain by Roy Arends and Walter Belgers        */
/*                                                                      */
/*     Usage is:  cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob        */
/*   where title-key = "153 2 8 105 225" or other similar 5-byte key    */

dig decss.friet.org|perl -ne'if(/^x/){s/[x.]//g;print pack(H124,$_)}'