Other OS vs. NT

Paul Jacobs paul at netpacq.com
Tue Feb 1 18:20:56 UTC 2000


At 11:45 PM 1/31/2000 , Mark wrote:
>Hey,
>
>I administrate about 270 domains for the ISP I work for.  We use a
>combination of Bind8 servers on Linux and FreeBSD platforms and the DNS that
>comes out of the box with NT.  Our NT servers have either SP3 or SP5, though
>we carefully avoided putting SP4 on anything.  Overall, I'd say that Bind8
>is absurdly superior to NT DNS.
>
>Here are my primary bitches about NT DNS:
>
>0. (I don't like GUI-only software.)
>1.  NT DNS in bind-compatibility mode is crippled, especially in terms of
>security.
>2.  NT DNS does fine delivering data on zones for which it is authoritative,
>but...  it frequently has problems serving cached information...
>3.  ..probably because... it frequently corrupts its cache file, requiring
>that the server be shut down and the cache restored from backup.  This is
>independent of the previous problem.
>4.  NT DNS fails more often than not when acting as a recursive server
>(looking up info not held in local files).
>5.  NT DNS logs to NT's system log, which is an unmitigated bloody mess.
>
>The primary advantage of NT DNS is the same as all things Microsoft: you can
>still accomplish something akin to what you had in mind without any clue
>whatsoever what you're actually doing.
>
>Overall, I'd say the difference here reflects exactly the general breakdown
>between NT and Unix:  NT is great, maybe even sometimes superior, for
>corporate LANs, but it should stay the hell off the Internet!
>
>--
>Mark Tippetts
>Postmaster, DNS Admin
>Lynxus Internet
>404-720-8351
>postmaster-at-lynxus.net
Have you tried win 2000 as of yet?


Cnet.com has a story on win 2000 ---- "It just works"


Best regards,
Paul Jacobs /Senior Network Eng.
Commerce Service Provider (CSP)
Internet Presence Provider (IPP)
Streaming Video and MPEG
http://www.netpacq.com
mailto:paul at netpacq.com
Picture : http://www.netpacq.com/nis_team.htm





More information about the bind-users mailing list