Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND

[Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu () deaddrop org>]

Roger Marquis wrote:

> You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
> servicing requests.  That is, IMO, bind's only major failing.  Too
> much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
> wants rndc), and no way to compile without them.  If you read Bruce
> Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
> "Amount of code" is.

While I don't disagree about lines of code, in general, I will remind you
that "nobody" and "everyone" are not sets that you may speak for. I like
rndc (although I preferred ndc). I've been using BIND since BIND 4.{mumble}
(currently at BIND 9 for those machines I retain responsibility for), and
I'd surely rather have all of BIND's little idiosyncrasies that to deal
with AD (now *there's* a nightmare).

--
Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When
you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's
stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with
taking.    -- Larry Wall