Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.protocols.dns.bind > #15998 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-07-21 16:23 -0600 |
| Last post | 2020-07-21 16:23 -0600 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.protocols.dns.bind
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named? "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> - 2020-07-21 16:23 -0600
| From | "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-21 16:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Debian/Ubuntu: Why was the service renamed from bind9 to named? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.740.1595370198.942.bind-users@lists.isc.org> |
On 21 Jul 2020, at 06:37, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: > On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:23, @lbutlr <kremels@kreme.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Anything that talks to the net is critical path from a security perspective. There are different levels of critical, and unbound is a lot further down that list that bind. -- We are born naked, wet and hungry; then it's all downhill.
Back to top | Article view | comp.protocols.dns.bind
csiph-web