SV: BIND 9.1.2 and TinyDNS???

[Matt Simerson]

> > Having it on the feature list doesn't make it work
> > any better today and that's the state I can test against. If the BIND 9
code
> > was bearing (as it should) designations like version 9.0.0b38 then that
> > argument could certainly be understandable. However, it's bearing
release
> > numbers and I don't think it's unfair or premature to treat it as such.
> 
> So your criticism basically boils down to a beef with ISC's 
> release numbering scheme (???)
> 
> - Kevin

No, my beef is that there is no memory management beyond "gimme more, more,
more". You said that I was premature to criticize BIND 9 for it's lack of
memory management because it's on the feature list. If BIND 9 were still in
pre-release, that argument would be understandable but it's released code
bearly release numbers. Until resource limits make it from the "to-do" list
into the released code, my criticism remains accurate. Don't get me wrong,
I'll be quite pleased to see some resource limits make it's way into BIND.
It'll be nice when my OS's install with a name server that I don't have to
immediately replace.

Matt