On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 18:48, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
However, the original point was that switching from BIND to Unbound or other options is silly, because you're just trading one codebase for another, and they all have bugs.
It is equally silly to assume that all codebase are the same quality and have equally many bugs. Maybe we should be looking at the track record of those two products and maybe we should let someone do a code review. And then choose based on that.
because: 1) historical results matter here? (who looked at which products over what period of time, with what attention to detail(s) and which sets of goals?) 2) the single person doing a code review is likely to see all of the problems in each of the products selected? nothing against any of the software in question here, but really this is all quite a crapshoot and past transgression research doesn't make for a great tool to plan for the future. Joe's right: "all software has bugs, find the software and strategy that makes sense for your organization" that MIGHT mean 2 platforms (seems sensible to me!) and it might mean automation for management of configs (from an abstraction so you can generate the right data to each target implementation) or it might mean more monkeys on keyboards if you don't believe in automation. -chris