David Botham DBotham at OptimusSolutions.com
Mon Dec 20 15:52:15 UTC 2004

bind-users-bounce at isc.org wrote on 12/17/2004 03:53:39 PM:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 08:41:09PM +0000, phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu 
> > > Maybe if dig didn't have the world's most convoluted and 
> > > options processing, more people would embrace it.
> > 
> > A great number of un*x commands are "non-standard", reason is that 
> > the apps themself that decodes the command line. See that as a 
> > degree of freedom, most commands has,in spite of ther non-standard
> > approach, a sensitive and logical way of processing arguments.
> I've been using UNIX since around 1987.  I'm familiar with the concepts.
> The issue isn't that dig was poorly written or violates some official
> standard.  I was just making a point that a lot of people resist using

I would be interested in looking into this standard.  Could you point me 
to this standard?

> dig because of its arcane and confusing options lists.

All of the options for the dig command are specific to querying name 
servers.  While there are many of them, I find dig to be the most useful 
tool for querying name servers.  With flexibility comes complexity.

> Obviously, they are free to keep it as convoluted as they want, but
> they also will continue to see resistance from long-time unix users
> switching to its use.

I am not sure what you mean by convoluted:

dig <type> <class> <domainname> @<nameserver> +/-<option>

Everything you want to specify about a domain name query is right there. 
Yes, there are bunches of options that can be really complicated, but, you 
have to admit, name server queries can be quite complicated...

> > If you don't like it' well the source is there, just change
> > according to your needs. Easier is to create a wrapper-script 
> > that processes arguments in your favorute way.
> Indeed, I do just that.  I just feel badly for those who are
> getting introduced to the dig interface for the first time.

I found the man page to be pretty straight forward.  If you mean the 
output, yes, that does seem a little over the top, until you read pages 
540 through 545 of DNS & BIND, 4th Edition and understand a DNS packet's 
format.  Then you will wonder how you ever did without the information 
shown in the dig output.


> --
> Dean Brooks
> dean at iglou.com

More information about the bind-users mailing list