Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named?
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Mon Jul 20 17:53:14 UTC 2020
Am 20.07.20 um 19:45 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
> On 7/17/2020 11:35 AM, John W. Blue wrote:
>> Speaking about things to be annoyed over ..
>> I am still ticked that FreeBSD dropped BIND from the distribution for
>> something called unwinding or whatever it is.
> I'm not happy that happened either but the simple fact is that if BIND
> would quit dropping support so fast for it's older versions that never
> would have happened. The fundamental problem was that BIND dropped
> support for it's older versions before the distros dropped support for
> their distros. This is happening with a lot of other software packages.
how has this anything to do with the fact that there is one named in
whatever version in your distribution?
it has also nothing to do with bind9 versus bind
it's a debian hobby to make such things like apache2 or bind9 where the
service is just httpd and named, no number and a completly different
name as debian is using
> 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. Simpler programs like Unbound have less code
> and so less things to go wrong, need less patches, and are easier to
> support for a longer period of time so they get supported for a longer
> period of time. Also, Unbound's main purpose in life is as a caching
> dns program. Nobody who runs a server on FreeBSD uses Unbound.
when i use a pure cache i run unbound and don't know why i wouldn't do
so on whatever OS which can run it
More information about the bind-users