DNS Cache Snooping?
atkac at redhat.com
Thu Jun 26 15:44:48 UTC 2008
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:30:27PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I for one would be really upset if RHEL overwrote supposedly default
> > configurations as I noted in my Sun patch to st.conf email yesterday.
> can you offer some guideance here, then, for ISC and for RH? the default
> ACL for allow-query was *wrong* and had to be fixed for the good of the
> internet. we did this with a lot of soul searching and some fanfare. we
> put it into a new major release, since we knew it was an incompatibility.
> and, since it was a new major release, we also put other things into it,
> including some things that RHEL users might benefit from.
You are absolutely right. Let me explain why we don't update to 9.4
Vast majority of our customers are not interested in newer version
of software which is faster, it supports new features etc. They simply
want install system, run it 10 years without reboot and they don't
want perform any updates because if something works as they want update
doesn't help, it might only break something.
Different situation is on Fedora field (statement written above is
about RHEL). This system is for people who want go with latest news
and improvements so you can find newest versions of software there.
> how should RH and ISC cause these new features to reach these customers?
This is big problem. As I wrote above big number of customers are not
interested. It would be nice to get same information from other big
Linux distributors (I can't remember when I saw person with @suse or
@debian here) but I'm affraid they won't tell here something
Make sure we don't want stop improvement. We support (= RH) two OSs
whose have pretty different goals. If you think RHEL contains too old
software you can use Fedora.
Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the bind-users