* Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-19 15:51]:
> Uh, no. There's nothing "proprietary" about it. Have you read
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html ? DJB's position seems to be that
> software licenses are unenforceable, so he chooses to not have one.
> Instead, he places restrictions o
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:24:22PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:11:23PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:38:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > >
> > > At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > ...if secu
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:11:23PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:38:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> >
> > At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > ...if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably
> > >
Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 18:14, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
Hi,
Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
still bind8 I think...
bind 9 works for me great for over a year. it serve
"Nathan E Norman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:28:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> >
> > At 2002-11-18T21:11:23Z, Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source. Perhaps
> > > you meant to say _DF
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:28:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> At 2002-11-18T21:11:23Z, Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source. Perhaps
> > you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
>
> No more than Microsoft's "shared source" i
At 2002-11-18T21:11:23Z, Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source. Perhaps
> you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
No more than Microsoft's "shared source" is open source. I can't
redistribute either of them, regardless of what bugs
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:28:13PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source.
> > Perhaps you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
>
> They originally meant the same thing:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs
Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source.
> Perhaps you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
They originally meant the same thing:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
What do you think open source means now? Why do you think t
"Kirk Strauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ...if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably
> > a good idea to stay away from BIND altogether.
>
> I'd disagree for one main reason: BIND is Open
On 18/11/02 Tim Dijkstra did speaketh:
> > What is "convenient" about bind8? That is a serious question and not
> > meant to be snide. Please educate me.
> I meant that it's convenient to stay with what you have, which is bind8
> in my case.
Does anybody use djbdns over bind?
Mike
--
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:38:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ...if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably
> > a good idea to stay away from BIND altogether.
>
> I'd disagree for one main
Tim Dijkstra said:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm asking
> this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is still
> bind8 I think...
>
probably not. I have read that for big nameservers bind9 is slower(servers
hosting thousands of zones
At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably
> a good idea to stay away from BIND altogether.
I'd disagree for one main reason: BIND is Open Source, and tinydns is not.
More security compromises h
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:39:47 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 17:14:38 +0100]:
> >
> > Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
> > asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind
> > is still
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 19:39, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 17:14:38 +0100]:
> >
> > Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
> > asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
> > still bind8 I think...
>
> What
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 17:14:38 +0100]:
> >
> > Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
> > asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
> > still bind8 I think...
>
> What is "convenient" abou
Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 17:14:38 +0100]:
>
> Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
> asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
> still bind8 I think...
What is "convenient" about bind8? That is a serious question and
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 18:14, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
> asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
> still bind8 I think...
bind 9 works for me great for over a year. it serves about 20 domains
and
Hi,
Is there any reason to stick with bind8 other then convenience? I'm
asking this because bind9 seems pretty mature, but the default bind is
still bind8 I think...
grts Tim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20 matches
Mail list logo
