Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named?

[@lbutlr]

On 20 Jul 2020, at 10:09, tale <d.lawrence at salesforce.com> wrote:
> And for what it's worth, not all systems moved away from "named" to
> "bind9".  I've been running FreeBSD for decades, and I can't remember
> ever calling the service "bind9".

The service is always named, the package is bind. I stopped adding the 9 many years ago unless I need to specify a specific version like "bind nine dot eleven".

On 20 Jul 2020, at 11:45, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> When FreeBSD was used mostly for servers it wasn't a problem. But more
> and more people are using it for desktop use where they want to basically install it and forget about it, never run patches, never give
> a fig about security.

Bind is a poor choice for desktop use. Packages like unbound are much better for that sort of use, and it is fr less critical if those packages have security issues.

I agree that anyone using a FreeBSD install as a server should be using bind, but I also agree it should not be the default install. You install bind when you figure out you need it, and not before.



-- 
Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; the
	just don't give a damn.