Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named?
kremels at kreme.com
Tue Jul 21 08:23:34 UTC 2020
On 20 Jul 2020, at 10:09, tale <d.lawrence at salesforce.com> wrote:
> And for what it's worth, not all systems moved away from "named" to
> "bind9". I've been running FreeBSD for decades, and I can't remember
> ever calling the service "bind9".
The service is always named, the package is bind. I stopped adding the 9 many years ago unless I need to specify a specific version like "bind nine dot eleven".
On 20 Jul 2020, at 11:45, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> When FreeBSD was used mostly for servers it wasn't a problem. But more
> and more people are using it for desktop use where they want to basically install it and forget about it, never run patches, never give
> a fig about security.
Bind is a poor choice for desktop use. Packages like unbound are much better for that sort of use, and it is fr less critical if those packages have security issues.
I agree that anyone using a FreeBSD install as a server should be using bind, but I also agree it should not be the default install. You install bind when you figure out you need it, and not before.
Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; the
just don't give a damn.
More information about the bind-users