Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 22:59:02 +0300 (EET DST) From: "Litvin Alexander B. <litvin@cmr.kiev.ua>" <archer@cmr.kiev.ua> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem in 2.1.5 install and loopback interface. Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960816225543.26733A-100000@cmr.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <199608161821.NAA16102@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > > According to Thomas David Rivers: > > > > You should use "hosts, bind" in /etc/host.conf and populate /etc/hosts with > > some important values like localhost and your primary interfaces. That way, > > you don't need a DNS for booting. > > So I am NOT the only person who feels this way :-) > > Can anybody explain the reason that it is done the other way around right > now? It seems to me that if you specify something in /etc/hosts, there must > be a really freakin' good reason for it, so why not have the system abide by > your wishes? > Because DNS is for centrilized administration. If some host on the net changes address, with DNS you won't even notice it, but with hosts you'll have to ask around what happened. -- Litvin Alexander <archer@cmr.kiev.ua>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSD/.3.91.960816225543.26733A-100000>