[dns-operations] FreeBSD and the slaving of the root zone
michael at rancid.berkeley.edu
Thu Aug 2 18:10:12 UTC 2007
Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
>> So I agree that the change should be backed out, but not because it
>> was thrust upon sysadmins.
> Anyone who runs a box is a sysadmin, even for his own personal
> workstation. The caching-only thing a lot of users do is key.
And each of those sysadmins had to do something before this change took
effect on their systems. I don't see how that changes my point. There
*is* a difference between the way FreeBSD does updates and, say, Windows
Update. (Okay, that's a bit extreme...)
The only people this change was thrust upon were people who would have
installed a release that hasn't been released yet--which is why it
needed to be backed out. Now that the change is backed out, that won't
Paul Vixie wrote:
> also, while this isn't a freebsd mailing list, i want to say that saying
> "no" to mergemaster when it wants to import some change from the mothership
> is a wizardly activity,
I'd actually argue that running mergemaster is itself a wizardly
activity, which is why I made the point that I did.
> and commits a boxowner (sysadmin) to saying no to
> this and related/dependent changes throughout the future. every time i say
> "no" i kick myself for the future workload i just bought myself.
It's not clear how this is true with named.conf, but in general, I think
Randy Bush wrote:
> in the workshops, we have been teaching, "it is easy and simple to run a
> caching server, and often what you should do for an server which is not
> undernourished." we will no longer be teaching this; life in the
> classroom just got a lot harder.
More information about the dns-operations