Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:25:39 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: josb@cncdsl.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <200102191825.f1JIPde37350@earth.backplane.com> References: <200102191012.DAA17412@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:When I brought up the issue of the old Soft Updates license being
:a problem for Best Internet, I wasn't joking: technically, they
:were using Soft Updates legally, but sale of their business when
:they were acquired could have triggered the license clause which
:prohibited FreeBSD from being shipped with the code compiled into
:the kernel and enabled by default.
Huh? It was a while ago but I am fairly certain I sent a Kirk a
check for our use of softupdates at BEST. I understand your point,
though, but it's a rather severe interpretation and I don't think
it applies to either softupdates or DJBDNS.
In anycase, the basic problem with DJBDNS is not that it couldn't be
made into a port -- DJB's distribution license does not prevent us from
creating a port with patches. The problem is that (A) The code is
uncommented and so badly formatted as to be essentially unreadable,
making it difficult to maintain by anyone outside of the author himself,
and (B) no significant changes can be made with any hope of them being
reincorporated into the base source due to DJB's rather severe ideas
about what DJBDNS should be.
This means that DJBDNS is essentially frozen, except for relatively minor
bug fixes and features which DJB decides fit in his world view, which
means that it is likely to wind up in the dustbin of history. In my
view, it is not a good long term bet. All you have to do is read his
documentation to see the deadend up ahead. Even DJB's refusal to
simply clarify the licensing issues, and his attitude on his own
mailing list points to this larger issue and we should simply
avoid the whole mess and not try to support the software.
Bind is a different story. Yes, Bind is definitely less secure. On
the otherhand, Paul Vixie has accepted or implemented just about all
the changes I've ever submitted to him. The only one he didn't accept
was the parallel-restart change that I used at BEST to reduce downtime
when restarting named. I eventually threw that one away myself. Bind
may have too *many* features, but this doesn't mean it won't be cleaned
up in the future (Bind9 is a good example of Paul realizing how much of
a mess Bind8 became and acting on that information). And Bind isn't
going to live or die with Paul. Bind is a good long term bet.
-Matt
:It's too much of a headache, and, from my personal point of view,
:and in accordance with the philosophy of an integrated, uncached
:control store (so that configuration changes take effect immediately),
:his code is seriously lacking.
:...
: Terry Lambert
: terry@lambert.org
:---
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102191825.f1JIPde37350>