Dan's "Ease of Use" Table, Redux (was Re: bind 8.2.4: limiting used memory?)

[Pete Ehlke]

D. J. Bernstein (75628121832146-bind at sublist.cr.yp.to) said, on [010811 16:15]:
> 
> Kevin Darcy writes:
> > people are expected to write custom scripts/programs on top of BIND
> 
> How can you claim that this is as easy as having the scripts already
> provided? Ridiculous.
> 
> Why doesn't the BIND company write their own add-ns and add-host and
> add-mx and add-childns tools, and include them with the package, and
> support them, instead of making their users suffer?
> 
So, Dan, to reiterate the question Kevin asked (and I will neither ask
nor add anything else for you to elide and evade this question...):

Are you claiming that djbdns, as shipped from your site, is a complete
DNS maintenance system that does not need any extra scripts to be fully
functional?

If your answer is yes, then I'm sure Kevin can subject it to the
scruitny he has directed at other such packages at DaimlerChrysler. And
I can hit it with the list of things I used while I was
hostmaster at sonymusic.com and hostmaster at sony.com.  I can assure you,
though, that djbdns will likely fare little better than a bare-bones bind
install would. Like Keven, I've never seen anything, including some very
expensive management packages, that really measured up.

If your answer is no, then please stop berating the bind package on this
point.

If your answer is that you consider djbdns to be simply more complete
than as-shipped bind, but not necessarily complete in itself, then
please state that fact clearly and positively, without the pejoratives
that have too often accompanied your (sometimes quite perceptive)
commentary.

If your answer is another one of your ad-hominems that avoids answering
the question, then please just don't bother. We've all heard it before.

-Pete