How to convert BIND to TinyDNS?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francisco Reyes [mailto:lists at stringsutils.com]
>Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 9:02 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Kristian Vaaf; chat at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: How to convert BIND to TinyDNS?
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>> Why are you bothering?  TinyDNS isn't the "standard" nameserver that
>> everyone and their dog has been using for time out of mind.
>The people
>> that push it seem to like it because it's simpler
>
>I would have to disagree with that philosophy.
>CCing chat.. since I am not actually adding anything of use to
>the original
>poster...
>
>
>If that mentality prevailed better software, commercial or open source,
>would never gain wide acceptance. Take for instance Postfix.
>When Sendmail
>was the total undisputed MTA, nobody would have bothered with
>it... but it
>was simpler than sendmail.
>

Not true.  I am intimately involved in Windows servers and know a lot
about
Windows, but I still push FreeBSD every chance I get.  And Windows is
definitely simpler than FreeBSD.

>The same applies with TinyDNS. For companies/users that have
>simple needs
>something easier to use/learn/maintain is a good thing to go for.
>

I'm not arguing that - but if they are taking over an existing BIND
nameserver
and they want to change it to tinyDNS - then they need to do it, not
try to get the prior admin to do it for them.

>
>> so I think the onus is on the TinyDNS people to understand what the
>> defacto standard is, not the other way around.
>
>Going back to the Sendmail vs Postfix example. The reason I went with
>Postfix years ago was because it was totally different from sendmail.
>

And I'm sure that you demanded the prior guy that setup Sendmail
to do the work building all your Postfix configuration files.....NOT!

>If someone is happy with bind, great for them, but to say that
>everybody
>should be using it

I didn't say that.  I said:

"...think the onus is on the TinyDNS people to understand what the
defacto standard is..."

Just because they understand it doesen't mean they have to use it.
I understand Windows but do you think I use it for servers when I have
a choice?

>I think it's neither realistic nor healthy
>for the Open
>Source community. Often times the "Standard" servers do new
>features because
>some small program somewhere came up with a great idea that the
>standard
>program didn't have.
>

Quite true.  But, not relevant I am afraid.  I was not arguing people
shouldn't
try to best the defacto standard with their programs.  But, before trying
to
-best- the defacto standard, they need to -understand- the defacto
standard.

>Lastly.. if we all would go with the "standard" there would be
>no FreeBSD,
>no open source... just windows.
>

I didn't say to "go with" the standard.  I said to "understand the
defacto standard"
Big difference.

Ted