Hacker News Reader

It is hard to imagine the serious, rational, objective argument that could exist for running BIND instead of djbdns, if those are your two choices. There are viable alternatives to qmail (Postfix and Exchange), but there aren't really viable alternatives for djbdns, and djbdns is less opinionated than qmail is.

View on HN

I've only setup a single BIND server, and chose that due to previous exposure to the zone file format. It got the job done, pretty quickly even, but I'll definitely consider djbdns next time the need arises.

Next time around, take a look at PowerDNS. You like flat files as your zone backend? Supported. You want an SQL backend? Supported. You want an LDAP backend? Supported. And so on and so on.

You mean like dnssec support? Yes, apart from that one super important feature, you may be correct.

And I bet the operators of ten of the thirteen root nameservers who are running BIND will be mighty glad to hear from you!

DNSSEC is a disaster. Even if you liked the protocol today, having support for it in your DNS server wouldn't help you.

It's true though; thirteen root nameserver operators do run BIND. You know what's worse? The tens of millions of people that like The Black Eyed Peas. >shudder< - what's wrong with me?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com