UNIX v Win2k

[Barry Margolin]

In article <abr2sk$1gk7$1 at isrv4.isc.org>,
Sasso, John IT <JSasso at mvphealthcare.com> wrote:
>Despite my UNIX slant, I agree with Barry.  If your business does not have
>anyone with UNIX experience (and assuming it cannot afford to hire someone
>with such experience), then sticking with BIND on a Windows box (or Win2K's
>DNS) may be better - for the sake of managing the servers.  

There's also another solution: outsource.

If your an entirely Windows shop, it's likely to be difficult to justify
hiring a Unix sysadmin just to run a DNS server.  But your ISP may offer
DNS services, so take them up on it.  Maybe they'll charge for it, but it
will undoubtedly be orders of magnitude less than the cost of a sysadmin.
Most organizations don't really need immediate, direct access to their DNS;
it doesn't change that often (unless you use Active Directory, but there's
often no need to do that on the public DNS server).

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.