Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named?

@lbutlr kremels at
Tue Jul 21 08:23:34 UTC 2020

On 20 Jul 2020, at 10:09, tale <d.lawrence at> 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> 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 mailing list