Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:33:08 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?) Message-ID: <201207091533.08963.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <CAMjP1K=b8mwqe31m=OqjUV%2BF=B85L4vpfT%2BDj00a1voPB-8TwA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BQLa9B-Dm-=hQCrbEgyfO4sKZ5aG72_PEFF9nLhyoy4GRCGrA@mail.gmail.com> <4FFA7980.4000707@FreeBSD.org> <CAMjP1K=b8mwqe31m=OqjUV%2BF=B85L4vpfT%2BDj00a1voPB-8TwA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 09 July 2012 09:34:34 Avleen Vig wrote: > The issue is also one of barrier-to-entry. By removing `dig` and > `host`, I think we're making things unnecessarily more difficult for > people who don't *know* FreeBSD. `dig` and `host` a universally > standard tools for doing DNS lookups. Taking them away in base to > replace them with something else just seems like something that won't > really *help* users. Yes. So we should change the base system so that by default it does a database lookup whenever you type an unrecognised command - to lower the barrier to entry. We should also change the base system to remove the most commonly used tools for doing DNS lookups, to.... what was the reason again? I suppose at least those arguing for both these changes can argue that one mitigates the non-POLA effect of the other.... Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201207091533.08963.j.mckeown>