Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:42:08 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: tevans.uk@googlemail.com Cc: demelier.david@gmail.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories Message-ID: <20130730.154208.41672901.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <CAFHbX1%2BJyHSPCccmf%2Bhk4C2b8wOcAUvxraFv7%2B04bNbbxbO33g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDctepQY0mGH7H%2BgOSm4HJwhe-RCND%2BmxAArnRxpWiCsjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFHbX1%2BJyHSPCccmf%2Bhk4C2b8wOcAUvxraFv7%2B04bNbbxbO33g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > For years, a lot of security advisories have been present for bind. > > I'm just guessing if it's not a good idea to remove bind from base? > > > > This will probably free by half the number of FreeBSD SA's in the future. > > > > Sure, but no bind in base also implies no dig, nslookup or host. Exactly. It's a slippery slope - if we continue removing useful functionality from FreeBSD there are fewer and fewer arguments for why one should use FreeBSD and not Linux. Yes, I know everything can be installed from packages/ports. Two of *my* main reasons for using FreeBSD is that: 1. It's an integrated *system*, not just a kernel. 2. The base system contains a lot of the useful functionality I need. and every contrib part which is removed, detracts from this. YMMV. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130730.154208.41672901.sthaug>