Bind or named

[Douglas J Hunley]

Shawn Tayler spewed electrons into the ether that assembled into:
> All this talk about nslookup has brought a question to mind.
>
> My little lan is getting a bit large to keep manually entering all the host
> names into /etc/hosts.  I think its about time to get a nameserver going
> around here.  Something that will take a local list and meld it with name
> service from my ISP's DNS.
>
> What are the groups recommendation on this subject?  Pros Cons, etc...

bind and named are one and the same

there are really only 2 choices:
bind
djbdns

bind is the traditional one. ships w/ every version of linnux and every 
commercial *nix. the latest 9.x versions are quick, secure, and robust.

djbdns is new to the scene. written to replace the older bind which was 
viewed as insecure, slow, and easy to knock over.

personally, I reccommend bind. learn it once, apply it everywhere
<PLUG>we have a good step-by-step on bind</PLUG>
-- 
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org
	and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org

Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit
patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit
microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of
competition.