Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND

[Adam McKenna <adam () flounder net>]

On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 03:05:20AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Niek wrote:
> > On 4/9/2005 3:46 AM +0100, Nathan Ward wrote:
> > > - I was forced to use DJBs naming conventions for zones
> > If you administer 2-3 domains, sure it's an hassle, if not, put code-monkeys
> > to work. Most script people I know love the tinydns zone structure in comparison
> > to bind's one.
>
> because instead of MX you have . or + or - or : or something so helpfully
> meaningful... same for NS and A and CNAME... Yes, 1 more level of
> indirection is not always a good thing.

Try writing a script to parse BIND zone files.  Now, try writing a script to
parse djbdns's zone file.  It's far easier to do the latter.  Notice the
similarity between djb's format and the format of some other commonly parsed
UNIX files.

> (not that I dislike djbdns, i just don't understand why things have to be
> 'different' so very much... and if bind works, why use djbdns?)

A Honda Civic will get you to work and back, so why buy an M3?

As with many other things in the IT world, this decision boils down to
several factors.  Who wrote it, or how popular it is, if you are a true
techie, should be close to the bottom of that list.

--Adam