Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:49:08 +0100 From: "James Wilde" <james.wilde@telia.com> To: "Doug Barton" <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Peter Chiu" <pccb@yahoo.com> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: dig and nslookup Message-ID: <000b01c04c96$2eeb93d0$8208a8c0@iqunlimited.net> In-Reply-To: <3A0DB8F7.59B1E419@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Doug Barton > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 22:24 > > Peter Chiu wrote: > > > > Why dig is in /usr/bin but nslookup is in /usr/sbin ? A recent newbie aha! experience for me was the realisation that */bin was for client binaries and */sbin for server binaries. :*} However I quickly realised that this was by no means universal, more of a tendency. And I can't for the life of me defend the hypothesis in connection with nslookup and dig, both of which, one assumes, are clients. Can it be that named - the server - goes in sbin, and related binaries, even clients, landed in the same place? I am assuming here that nslookup is, shall we say, a closer relative of named than dig is. > > Because nslookup is retarded. > > Doug > PS, there really is no good answer. You shouldn't use nslookup anyway, > just use dig. Is this one of those religious wars of the vi/emacs sh/bsh/csh/tsh type? Nslookup, like, say, vi and sh, can be found on all machines, even on NT machines. And for the most part it does the job. mvh/regards James To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000b01c04c96$2eeb93d0$8208a8c0>