Hi,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:00:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > no, there is at least one other unix nameserver that reads them. NSD. ok - taken already. I've skimmed their web pages but wasn't overly fascinated in an instant. But I'll expect to keep an eye on it. > there have been no arguments brought forward against the bind zonefile > format. a few people have claimed that it sucks but without providing > any reason or evidence. djbdns doesn't support it and djb doesn't like > it - that means that it's broken, right? No. Well, I may have missed that arguments against the BIND file format have not been brought forward on this list, but I've seen numerous complaints about it over the passage of time, and also have my own experience with it. When I turned from BIND to djbdns, I discovered that I had several errors in my name server setup, despite the fact that I thought I had double-checked each time I messed with the server. In a different message I wrote about helping a guy to get his name server up (BIND, too). I didn't like to wade through his 50+ domains, totalling a few hundred records, and decided to set up tinydns and pull them over. Doing it revealed a few dozen errors in his zone files that were not really obvious while consuming about half an hour. He was working on his files for several weeks already... Just the matter of handling the various dots right, and not forgetting the serial number, makes for a lot of chances to mess things up, especially if you're tired. > why, then, did that file format work for years before djbdns came along? Well, it worked, and still works in a certain sense. Sendmail also still works, and I'm about certain that I can power up a machine that runs 8.6.12 and would be able to receive and deliver mail. Is that any indication about that being a desirable, or at least satisfactory, state of affairs? I don't think so... Like checking all the reverse-mapping hassle that's going on on the Internet. Most people don't do it right, no? Doing it right with BIND is work. Doing it right with djbdns comes for free if someone likes to delegate the reverse mapping to you, and/or accepts to pull it from you. > because i prefer plain text files, i am "ignoring" certain tools? You made several statements that went like "I want my BIND files because I'm familiar with them, and can't read the obscure djbdns files." The tinydns data file _is_ a plain text file, you only compile it to a cdb file that the name server uses. And yes, there's a design difference between BIND and tinydns. An analogy is BSD using a compilation of the passwd file in db format, for faster lookups, where Linux traditionally uses a flat plain text file. Not _that_ much of a difference unless you want to claim that the tinydns-data compiler doesn't work correctly. If you use tools, you can be pretty ignorant about what format the application data is stored in. So, if the data file isn't plain text enough for you, you can't be using tools. (I also use version controll for my DNS data, but wouldn't call that a tool in this context). If you wanted to use tools, you should have been able to find and/or write them. They are there... > what universe do you live in? I'm in the same universe as you are. Or are you from outer space? > > No, all other Unix DNS software I am aware of can't do it as well. > NSD. That's still only one, compared to some 10+ other servers that can't. It's a very new one, too. So what was your real argument? Didn't you volunteer to post a patch to tinydns that makes it read BIND zone files directly? > > There could be a reason in _that_. > > laziness? > ignorance? > an irrational compulsion to reinvent wheels that work well enough (i.e. > Not-Invented-Here syndrome)? I don't think so. Most people are lazy, yes. If doing it BIND style would be easy, I'm sure many more people had adopted that way just to save them work. After all, if your tools work well enough, why throw them away? I venture to claim that all people who went away from the (ubiquitiously preinstalled) BIND have not done so because they didn't feel the need for an alternative, ie, they felt that BIND is a very significant PITA, too much to stand. > > How do you think about the multitude of SQL- and LDAP-backed DNS- (or > > anything-) servers out there? That's all crap because they don't work > > with BIND zone files and sendmail.cf? > try arguing against what *I* say, not what you claim that i say. You said that not using BIND zone files in a name server software is a stupid thing to do, and that doing it the conservative way requires sticking with BIND zone files, and you also brought forward the same argument for inetd and syslog. I only extended that to sendmail as well, which is also a piece of legacy software. So I rephrase the questions: How do you think about the multitude of SQL- and LDAP-backed DNS servers out there? That's all crap because they don't work with BIND zone files? > i really don't like people stuffing words into my mouth. for one thing, Well, then re-read what you said in the various messages on these lists. I'm not the only one who was very happy to benefit from your wisdom. > [ some more mud slinging clipped ] > i know that djbdns is not suitable for my needs, and why i know that > it's zonefile format sucks. You didn't yet explain why this format sucks in case you didn't notice... Apart from that, I have no problem if you want to stay with BIND, but please just stop making false claims and slinging mud at other people who happen to disagree with you. I also have no problem if you want _some_ name server software to support BIND zone files as long as you don't insult all those who don't support them, and as long as you don't demand that this be "fixed". > if you had bothered reading what i posted, you would have noticed me > mentioning (on several occasions) that i have run djbdns on several > machines over several months. Yes, I have read that. This came very late in the debate, however, and you didn't mention details about what problems you had with it, other than that it didn't fit with your habits. > the "problem", since you insist that there must be one, is that djbdns > is inadequate for my needs and there is currently no viable alternative You still fail to say _why_. I also feel that some thing or other is inadequate for my needs, and I _can_ say why when that is the case. > > There are still some who insist that only punch cards can give you > > long-term reliable data storage. You're one of them. That's a direct result of the whole way you argued before. And thanks for the flowers, I see that you want to keep to it [ clipped ]... Toni -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
