On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 03:05:20AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Niek wrote:
On 4/9/2005 3:46 AM +0100, Nathan Ward wrote:
- I was forced to use DJBs naming conventions for zones If you administer 2-3 domains, sure it's an hassle, if not, put code-monkeys to work. Most script people I know love the tinydns zone structure in comparison to bind's one.
because instead of MX you have . or + or - or : or something so helpfully meaningful... same for NS and A and CNAME... Yes, 1 more level of indirection is not always a good thing.
Try writing a script to parse BIND zone files. Now, try writing a script to parse djbdns's zone file. It's far easier to do the latter. Notice the similarity between djb's format and the format of some other commonly parsed UNIX files.
(not that I dislike djbdns, i just don't understand why things have to be 'different' so very much... and if bind works, why use djbdns?)
A Honda Civic will get you to work and back, so why buy an M3? As with many other things in the IT world, this decision boils down to several factors. Who wrote it, or how popular it is, if you are a true techie, should be close to the bottom of that list. --Adam