Odd problems trying to make use of libbind as a replacement resolver...

[A Humble Bind User]

> 	There's never enough time to do things right in the first place,
> but always time to fix them later.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Actually, none of this corresponds to any sensible software engineering
methodology I'm aware of.  One casualty of "Open Source" is the lack of formal
design documentation in advance of the first line of code.  The Sleepycat DB
library as Paul mentioned is a model exception of course, but most of the time
"read the source" is the rule of the game when it comes time for
"documentation", which is just plain awful.  

For one thing, it almost forces a "short-view" of the library/code-base and
tempts application writers to peek into and abuse structures which should be
completely private, etc.  For another, it fails to provide higher-level
semantic understanding of how the library is meant to be used.

Yeah, yeah, wrong list.

> 	Listen -- you want a magic cure-all for whatever your problems
> are, and you refuse to accept that such a magic cure-all doesn't
> exist.

I'm not "refusing" anything.  Furthermore, I'm not "wanting" anything from anyone.

> And you refuse to put in the level of work required to at
> least move a step closer to what you want.

I'd love to put in the work to do it, actually... it just won't provide the
funds for the silly things like paying bills and eating if I were to drop
everything that does.  It's great that people can find a way to earn a living
writing "free" software, but I'm not one of them.

> 	Just exactly how much support do you expect us to be willing to
> give you under such circumstances?

Actually, I don't expect anything. Well, I do expect something... a reasonably
intelligent and attitude-free reply from people who don't jump to conclusions.

I'm not asking for anyone to "solve my problems for me"...  After 15+ years of
development, and pretenses of a "standardised UNIX platform", I would have
thought such a core component would be converging towards some standardised
behaviour.

All said, it was a hope borne of some encouraging signs that the BIND9 project
was a stab at "cleaning house" and building a name server infrastructure that
is maintainable and extensible without risking disaster after each new feature. 

Clearly, this is not going to happen.  I've accepted it, moved on, got the
t-shirt, and will cross my fingers that the stale and slow-to-update system
resolvers don't expose my applications to greater risks of instability or
vulnerabilities.

I was asking questions, not demanding solutions.  I don't expect anything from
free/open-source communities in fact... if the code works at all, that's a
bonus.  I'm even happy to fix/extend/supplant a technology too, if it's
something that doesn't require a significant diversion.

=R=