On 07/13/2011 12:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/13/2011 1:50 PM, John Hinton wrote:
>>
>>>> But my use cases are related to a prodduction environment,
>>>> maintaining several hundred zone files, with lots of adds,
>>>> changes, and deletes. The s-c-bind GUI tool was useless,
>>>> compared to TUI edits (certain legacy systems) and scripts to
>>>> do the backups, accuracy audit, and creation of all files
>>>> including the PTR record files
>>> So, aren't computer programs supposed to be able to deal with
>>> complicated cases, or just not free computer programs? Or is the input
>>> syntax just too weird? While s-c-bind may not have been the right
>>> answer, it just seems odd as a missing piece in the distribution and
>>> epel-provided packages. Almost as odd as not having a network-aware
>>> authentication mechanism working as a server out of the box on your
>>> initial install - as though it would be unusual to have more than one
>>> computer and want those initial users to be able to log into the others
>>> you'd add later.
>>>
>> I would have to guess that UpStream decided it was not to be. They most
>> likely had very good reasons for this. I 'barely' looked at it as it
>> could not do what I need to do and that was some years back. Is/Was it
>> capable of doing IPV6? That would be a good reason to put it to bed...
>> given IPV6 will likely become widespread during the lifespan of CentOS
>> 6. Various SPF/SenderID/DomainKeys things also ride on bind these days.
>> It could be that UpStream decided that was a good reason to put it to
>> bed? Either way, CentOS is a nearly exact clone of UpStream, so really
>> you need to go complain at UpStream, not on this list. CentOS has
>> exactly matched their goal of providing the same packages available
>> under UpStream. There is no point to complaining here.
>
> It's not so much a complaint and certainly not directed at CentOS, as
> pointing out a curious situation that pretty much everyone has to work
> around. Russ may be of the opinion that everyone should memorize
> bazillion-page books of details about each quirky service or hire
> someone who did, but I think the point of using computers should be to
> make things easier. And I'm surprised that there isn't a common tool to
> make it easy at least in the usual 3rd party repos.
>
Yes, certainly NOT a complaint with CentOS. system-config-bind was a very useful too for us. It wasn't perfect and there were a few features it could have benefited from, but it did a good enough job for we needed it to do.
I had been thinking recently that we needed to start looking for a different way to manage the DNS servers on our gateways, and had even begun to build initial bind configuration for production systems into the configuration scripts. I guess I am unhappy because someone else made the decision about when to stop using system-config-bind for me :-) And for no good reason that I can figure.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
