North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
- From: Chris Kuethe
- Date: Fri Apr 08 20:20:27 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=s+2SyV/2AHjoTDR1xGRfmCaKevMiu2BLf69+WQg5J69uQdYKrLjoNL73R8POJ9Q1j6mw1+Ka0SmuURiHUF42ClEP422jPBIO2WswyRgdEm4OuaWa7RYG+ZbOPsZpAtcEkB+17539tViT9QwSbvazmJu9RjGhyf9Ivz6+r9GuIsc=
On Apr 8, 2005 4:55 PM, Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/04/06/197203&from=rss
>
> Just wondering how many have transitioned to djbdns from bind and if so
> any feedback.
>
> regards,
> /vicky
I used to use djbdns on my laptop for testing things, and then I took
an afternoon, learned to write BIND zone files, and decided I should
just use the BIND that comes with so many modern unixen and that
powers so much of the internet anyway...
Since then, I've always preferred deploying bind over djbdns. Even if
it was easier to configure, the installation process for DJBDNS always
really annoyed me. So that's a djbdns *to* bind transition story.
CK
--
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
|
