<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_0123240</id>
	<title>ISC Releases the First Look At BIND 10</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269094200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ethanol writes <i>"<a href="http://www.isc.org/">Internet Systems Consortium</a>, producers of <a href="http://www.isc.org/software/bind">BIND 9</a> (the most popular DNS implementation on the internet), have spent the past year working on a successor, <a href="http://www.isc.org/bind10">BIND 10</a>.  It's entirely new code, redesigned and rewritten from the ground up, and now the <a href="http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201003/bind-10-first-year">first glimpse of what it will eventually look like has been released</a>.  'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs. These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of years, as functionality is added and refined, and the software matures. However, the codebase has a good framework for moving forward, and the software is capable of serving as a DNS server with significant functionality.'  (Full disclosure: I work for ISC and I'm one of the engineers on the project.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethanol writes " Internet Systems Consortium , producers of BIND 9 ( the most popular DNS implementation on the internet ) , have spent the past year working on a successor , BIND 10 .
It 's entirely new code , redesigned and rewritten from the ground up , and now the first glimpse of what it will eventually look like has been released .
'This code is not intended for general use , and is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs .
These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of years , as functionality is added and refined , and the software matures .
However , the codebase has a good framework for moving forward , and the software is capable of serving as a DNS server with significant functionality .
' ( Full disclosure : I work for ISC and I 'm one of the engineers on the project .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethanol writes "Internet Systems Consortium, producers of BIND 9 (the most popular DNS implementation on the internet), have spent the past year working on a successor, BIND 10.
It's entirely new code, redesigned and rewritten from the ground up, and now the first glimpse of what it will eventually look like has been released.
'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs.
These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of years, as functionality is added and refined, and the software matures.
However, the codebase has a good framework for moving forward, and the software is capable of serving as a DNS server with significant functionality.
'  (Full disclosure: I work for ISC and I'm one of the engineers on the project.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31562848</id>
	<title>Kaminski?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the fearless boy wonder Dan Kaminski? He's been busy abusing and breaking DNS for years! How about him getting off his ass and actually building something for once? It's easy to destroy something but it's much harder to create something worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the fearless boy wonder Dan Kaminski ?
He 's been busy abusing and breaking DNS for years !
How about him getting off his ass and actually building something for once ?
It 's easy to destroy something but it 's much harder to create something worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the fearless boy wonder Dan Kaminski?
He's been busy abusing and breaking DNS for years!
How about him getting off his ass and actually building something for once?
It's easy to destroy something but it's much harder to create something worthwhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546758</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>worst piece of widely-used network software ever made</p></div><p>uhh, sendmail?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>worst piece of widely-used network software ever madeuhh , sendmail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>worst piece of widely-used network software ever madeuhh, sendmail?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546670</id>
	<title>Excellent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slow, buggy, hard to work with,  but we'll fix it later.  And not Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow , buggy , hard to work with , but we 'll fix it later .
And not Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow, buggy, hard to work with,  but we'll fix it later.
And not Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748</id>
	<title>DJB might agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs</i> Could apply to any version of BIND</htmltext>
<tokenext>This code is not intended for general use , and is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs Could apply to any version of BIND</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs Could apply to any version of BIND</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546826</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Ethanol</author>
	<datestamp>1269013080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic?</p></div><p>'Cause it's open source software, emphasis on "open".  It won't be done for another couple of years, but you can look at the work in progress.  You can even help write it if you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic ?
'Cause it 's open source software , emphasis on " open " .
It wo n't be done for another couple of years , but you can look at the work in progress .
You can even help write it if you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic?
'Cause it's open source software, emphasis on "open".
It won't be done for another couple of years, but you can look at the work in progress.
You can even help write it if you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548880</id>
	<title>Re:DJB might agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That really bothers me. This just sounds like Fred Brooks' Second System Effect to the 9th generation.</p><p>By now they should have the core concepts down to a science and be able to drop in various experimental components until they have what they want.</p><p>Bugs around the edges is pretty much inevitable. "Riddled with bugs" I think not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That really bothers me .
This just sounds like Fred Brooks ' Second System Effect to the 9th generation.By now they should have the core concepts down to a science and be able to drop in various experimental components until they have what they want.Bugs around the edges is pretty much inevitable .
" Riddled with bugs " I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really bothers me.
This just sounds like Fred Brooks' Second System Effect to the 9th generation.By now they should have the core concepts down to a science and be able to drop in various experimental components until they have what they want.Bugs around the edges is pretty much inevitable.
"Riddled with bugs" I think not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547680</id>
	<title>Yet again</title>
	<author>demon</author>
	<datestamp>1269025440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? The idea is to go for yet another rewrite? And it sounds like it's going to be a half-assed database backing (SQLite? Is this right?)? Why not just move to an abstracted storage backend, and let the admin pick what works for him (or write his own backend plugin)? You know, like PowerDNS has been doing for awhile now. Seriously, guys, let's just stop using BIND and move to a better nameserver; it really seems like ISC is going to be rewriting BIND until the heat death of the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
The idea is to go for yet another rewrite ?
And it sounds like it 's going to be a half-assed database backing ( SQLite ?
Is this right ? ) ?
Why not just move to an abstracted storage backend , and let the admin pick what works for him ( or write his own backend plugin ) ?
You know , like PowerDNS has been doing for awhile now .
Seriously , guys , let 's just stop using BIND and move to a better nameserver ; it really seems like ISC is going to be rewriting BIND until the heat death of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
The idea is to go for yet another rewrite?
And it sounds like it's going to be a half-assed database backing (SQLite?
Is this right?)?
Why not just move to an abstracted storage backend, and let the admin pick what works for him (or write his own backend plugin)?
You know, like PowerDNS has been doing for awhile now.
Seriously, guys, let's just stop using BIND and move to a better nameserver; it really seems like ISC is going to be rewriting BIND until the heat death of the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462</id>
	<title>Your doing it wrong - for the 10th time!</title>
	<author>richrumble</author>
	<datestamp>1269022200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you sleep knowing DJB is out there and you can't compare? How can this be your 10th version with no hope of being better at writing DNS code. Swallow your pride, and start with a known good code base, you know like DJB, then cock it up... you are bind after all... that's what you guys do, and that you ARE good at. Every week, every month for years, decades, it's another bind security alert. Bind is the only code that I know of that is the exception to the saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"... you can if there is no ear left, is there any original code in b9? Back to the drawing board wasn't far enough... jesus christ. Are interns the only ones allowed to code? Are you getting M$ rejects? I don't understand, do the opposite of what you think you should do, and maybe you have some decent code there, ask people on the street if this this and this are a good idea... ask your grand parents, filp coins... something other than what you do day in and day out fuck!
-rich</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you sleep knowing DJB is out there and you ca n't compare ?
How can this be your 10th version with no hope of being better at writing DNS code .
Swallow your pride , and start with a known good code base , you know like DJB , then cock it up... you are bind after all... that 's what you guys do , and that you ARE good at .
Every week , every month for years , decades , it 's another bind security alert .
Bind is the only code that I know of that is the exception to the saying " you ca n't make a silk purse out of a sows ear " ... you can if there is no ear left , is there any original code in b9 ?
Back to the drawing board was n't far enough... jesus christ .
Are interns the only ones allowed to code ?
Are you getting M $ rejects ?
I do n't understand , do the opposite of what you think you should do , and maybe you have some decent code there , ask people on the street if this this and this are a good idea... ask your grand parents , filp coins... something other than what you do day in and day out fuck !
-rich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you sleep knowing DJB is out there and you can't compare?
How can this be your 10th version with no hope of being better at writing DNS code.
Swallow your pride, and start with a known good code base, you know like DJB, then cock it up... you are bind after all... that's what you guys do, and that you ARE good at.
Every week, every month for years, decades, it's another bind security alert.
Bind is the only code that I know of that is the exception to the saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"... you can if there is no ear left, is there any original code in b9?
Back to the drawing board wasn't far enough... jesus christ.
Are interns the only ones allowed to code?
Are you getting M$ rejects?
I don't understand, do the opposite of what you think you should do, and maybe you have some decent code there, ask people on the street if this this and this are a good idea... ask your grand parents, filp coins... something other than what you do day in and day out fuck!
-rich</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548590</id>
	<title>Future direction?</title>
	<author>thogard</author>
	<datestamp>1269089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.</p><p>I'm old school so I like dedicated hardware for my DNS servers.  I run bsd jails that don't have anything but bind running.  I used to run solaris servers that had init running named running off a read only scsi disk that was shared with another server. Init ran another program that would mount the file system read only, copy the zone files and then unmount the disk.  There was another program that watched for a condition and then sent init signals. There were less than 20 files on the disk.  That is what I want on a future name server.  I can do that now on a Freebsd zone or a Solaris container as well (except I have to replace iniit with the cd rom boot one, why does it link to buggy xml libs?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I 'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.I 'm old school so I like dedicated hardware for my DNS servers .
I run bsd jails that do n't have anything but bind running .
I used to run solaris servers that had init running named running off a read only scsi disk that was shared with another server .
Init ran another program that would mount the file system read only , copy the zone files and then unmount the disk .
There was another program that watched for a condition and then sent init signals .
There were less than 20 files on the disk .
That is what I want on a future name server .
I can do that now on a Freebsd zone or a Solaris container as well ( except I have to replace iniit with the cd rom boot one , why does it link to buggy xml libs ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.I'm old school so I like dedicated hardware for my DNS servers.
I run bsd jails that don't have anything but bind running.
I used to run solaris servers that had init running named running off a read only scsi disk that was shared with another server.
Init ran another program that would mount the file system read only, copy the zone files and then unmount the disk.
There was another program that watched for a condition and then sent init signals.
There were less than 20 files on the disk.
That is what I want on a future name server.
I can do that now on a Freebsd zone or a Solaris container as well (except I have to replace iniit with the cd rom boot one, why does it link to buggy xml libs?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547604</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1269024360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No that is healthcare reform</htmltext>
<tokenext>No that is healthcare reform</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No that is healthcare reform</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548112</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>shani</author>
	<datestamp>1269077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, someone once wrote a convincing text which says: <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html" title="catb.org">Release Early, Release Often</a> [catb.org].
</p><p>
It's a release in the sense that we wanted to make it widely available for people to see what ideas we are playing with, and to get feedback and participation.
</p><p>
[ disclaimer - I am the BIND 10 project manager ]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , someone once wrote a convincing text which says : Release Early , Release Often [ catb.org ] .
It 's a release in the sense that we wanted to make it widely available for people to see what ideas we are playing with , and to get feedback and participation .
[ disclaimer - I am the BIND 10 project manager ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, someone once wrote a convincing text which says: Release Early, Release Often [catb.org].
It's a release in the sense that we wanted to make it widely available for people to see what ideas we are playing with, and to get feedback and participation.
[ disclaimer - I am the BIND 10 project manager ]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550236</id>
	<title>Re:A Monument to "Software Engineering"</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1269108300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't this be an ideal target for test driven development</p></div><p>Depends on the difficulty of running meaningful tests. Moreover, testing an application architecture is rather more difficult than testing individual units that plug into such an architecture. (One of the goals of an architecture ought to be that it allows the testing of modules plugged into it without doing a full run of the whole mess, i.e., that it enables TDD. Getting to that stage isn't trivial; if you think it is, that's probably because you've never tried writing one for real, and have just been leveraging someone else's architecture.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this be an ideal target for test driven developmentDepends on the difficulty of running meaningful tests .
Moreover , testing an application architecture is rather more difficult than testing individual units that plug into such an architecture .
( One of the goals of an architecture ought to be that it allows the testing of modules plugged into it without doing a full run of the whole mess , i.e. , that it enables TDD .
Getting to that stage is n't trivial ; if you think it is , that 's probably because you 've never tried writing one for real , and have just been leveraging someone else 's architecture .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this be an ideal target for test driven developmentDepends on the difficulty of running meaningful tests.
Moreover, testing an application architecture is rather more difficult than testing individual units that plug into such an architecture.
(One of the goals of an architecture ought to be that it allows the testing of modules plugged into it without doing a full run of the whole mess, i.e., that it enables TDD.
Getting to that stage isn't trivial; if you think it is, that's probably because you've never tried writing one for real, and have just been leveraging someone else's architecture.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547734</id>
	<title>Re:What's so hard about this?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1269026640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm...this "database" isn't relational, there's no inner joins or anything like that (at least there shouldn't be), it's a one-to-one lookup (text string to IP address).</p><p>It's not the sort of thing which takes ten revisions just to get to a state where it's "inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm...this " database " is n't relational , there 's no inner joins or anything like that ( at least there should n't be ) , it 's a one-to-one lookup ( text string to IP address ) .It 's not the sort of thing which takes ten revisions just to get to a state where it 's " inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm...this "database" isn't relational, there's no inner joins or anything like that (at least there shouldn't be), it's a one-to-one lookup (text string to IP address).It's not the sort of thing which takes ten revisions just to get to a state where it's "inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548266</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like Windows ME? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Windows ME ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Windows ME?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548056</id>
	<title>The unit tests are a bad joke - age and sex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These tests are a joke, for example in the file src/bin/bindctl/unittest/bindctl\_test.py we have the following function (which isn't used anywhere, so what is the point of this test function, Bind will support some sort of age/sex restrictions on data it serves perhaps?):</p><p>

<tt>
class TestModuleInfo(unittest.TestCase):<br>
<br>
    def test\_get\_param\_name\_by\_position(self):<br>
        cmd = CommandInfo('command')<br>
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('name'))<br>
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('age'))<br>
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('data', optional = True))<br>
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('sex'))<br>
        self.assertEqual('name', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(0, 2))<br>
        self.assertEqual('age', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(1, 2))<br>
        self.assertEqual('sex', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 3))<br>
        self.assertEqual('data', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 4))<br>
        self.assertEqual('data', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 4))<br>
<br>
        self.assertRaises(KeyError, cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position, 4, 4)
</tt>

</p><p>I seriously get the feeling they padded out the unit tests with.. well.. junk from who knows where.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These tests are a joke , for example in the file src/bin/bindctl/unittest/bindctl \ _test.py we have the following function ( which is n't used anywhere , so what is the point of this test function , Bind will support some sort of age/sex restrictions on data it serves perhaps ?
) : class TestModuleInfo ( unittest.TestCase ) : def test \ _get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( self ) : cmd = CommandInfo ( 'command ' ) cmd.add \ _param ( ParamInfo ( 'name ' ) ) cmd.add \ _param ( ParamInfo ( 'age ' ) ) cmd.add \ _param ( ParamInfo ( 'data ' , optional = True ) ) cmd.add \ _param ( ParamInfo ( 'sex ' ) ) self.assertEqual ( 'name ' , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( 0 , 2 ) ) self.assertEqual ( 'age ' , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( 1 , 2 ) ) self.assertEqual ( 'sex ' , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( 2 , 3 ) ) self.assertEqual ( 'data ' , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( 2 , 4 ) ) self.assertEqual ( 'data ' , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position ( 2 , 4 ) ) self.assertRaises ( KeyError , cmd.get \ _param \ _name \ _by \ _position , 4 , 4 ) I seriously get the feeling they padded out the unit tests with.. well.. junk from who knows where .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These tests are a joke, for example in the file src/bin/bindctl/unittest/bindctl\_test.py we have the following function (which isn't used anywhere, so what is the point of this test function, Bind will support some sort of age/sex restrictions on data it serves perhaps?
):


class TestModuleInfo(unittest.TestCase):

    def test\_get\_param\_name\_by\_position(self):
        cmd = CommandInfo('command')
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('name'))
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('age'))
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('data', optional = True))
        cmd.add\_param(ParamInfo('sex'))
        self.assertEqual('name', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(0, 2))
        self.assertEqual('age', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(1, 2))
        self.assertEqual('sex', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 3))
        self.assertEqual('data', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 4))
        self.assertEqual('data', cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position(2, 4))

        self.assertRaises(KeyError, cmd.get\_param\_name\_by\_position, 4, 4)


I seriously get the feeling they padded out the unit tests with.. well.. junk from who knows where.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549604</id>
	<title>And another +1 insightful</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1269101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean for chrissake, how hard can it be to take a domain name and return an IP, and vice versa?  It's a database with a coupla queries.  Sheesh.  And why churn out code that is full of security vulnerabilities?  A security vulnerability is a shitty piece of code.  Plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean for chrissake , how hard can it be to take a domain name and return an IP , and vice versa ?
It 's a database with a coupla queries .
Sheesh. And why churn out code that is full of security vulnerabilities ?
A security vulnerability is a shitty piece of code .
Plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean for chrissake, how hard can it be to take a domain name and return an IP, and vice versa?
It's a database with a coupla queries.
Sheesh.  And why churn out code that is full of security vulnerabilities?
A security vulnerability is a shitty piece of code.
Plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546764</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BIND was the joke of the security conscious community for over a decade. I look forward to their new code. Maybe we can return to the good old days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BIND was the joke of the security conscious community for over a decade .
I look forward to their new code .
Maybe we can return to the good old days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BIND was the joke of the security conscious community for over a decade.
I look forward to their new code.
Maybe we can return to the good old days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546866</id>
	<title>BIND GIGO/SOS, = 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's the old, GIGO phrase go....<br>So if you start with the same old stuff in (BIND symantics/syntax), use some "new" code to processes it, and you expect the post dump analysis to be different irrespective of how much the code is rewritten to generate the S.O.S?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's the old , GIGO phrase go....So if you start with the same old stuff in ( BIND symantics/syntax ) , use some " new " code to processes it , and you expect the post dump analysis to be different irrespective of how much the code is rewritten to generate the S.O.S ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's the old, GIGO phrase go....So if you start with the same old stuff in (BIND symantics/syntax), use some "new" code to processes it, and you expect the post dump analysis to be different irrespective of how much the code is rewritten to generate the S.O.S?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548628</id>
	<title>Re:djbdns users register here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, don't think so Onymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , do n't think so Onymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, don't think so Onymous Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547132</id>
	<title>Does not look great, honestly.</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1269016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of 1 daemon I'll now get 3-4 running daemons interacting in strange ways? Thanks, that's exactly what I need.</p><p>How about scriptability and/or custom resolvers? Nope, none of this.</p><p>Oh well, probably I should switch to DJBDns. It also uses a ton of daemons, but at least it's architectured properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of 1 daemon I 'll now get 3-4 running daemons interacting in strange ways ?
Thanks , that 's exactly what I need.How about scriptability and/or custom resolvers ?
Nope , none of this.Oh well , probably I should switch to DJBDns .
It also uses a ton of daemons , but at least it 's architectured properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of 1 daemon I'll now get 3-4 running daemons interacting in strange ways?
Thanks, that's exactly what I need.How about scriptability and/or custom resolvers?
Nope, none of this.Oh well, probably I should switch to DJBDns.
It also uses a ton of daemons, but at least it's architectured properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547492</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269023040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So we're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at, and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you can't write a new program, practically free of buggy code, you certainly don't have the wherewithall to fix bugs in existing code...</p><p>Sendmail certainly came through it's rewrite vastly better than it was before.  Other DNS programs, like MaraDNS, have come on the scene, and remain exploit-free for several years now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at , and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.If you ca n't write a new program , practically free of buggy code , you certainly do n't have the wherewithall to fix bugs in existing code...Sendmail certainly came through it 's rewrite vastly better than it was before .
Other DNS programs , like MaraDNS , have come on the scene , and remain exploit-free for several years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at, and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.If you can't write a new program, practically free of buggy code, you certainly don't have the wherewithall to fix bugs in existing code...Sendmail certainly came through it's rewrite vastly better than it was before.
Other DNS programs, like MaraDNS, have come on the scene, and remain exploit-free for several years now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547094</id>
	<title>Not in a rush for bind10</title>
	<author>Teunis</author>
	<datestamp>1269016200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not in a rush for bind10 - I find bind9 to be quite sufficient, on the whole.   I do look forward to seeing what it brings and how it may make my life with the systems I manage much easier.   This does look interesting though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not in a rush for bind10 - I find bind9 to be quite sufficient , on the whole .
I do look forward to seeing what it brings and how it may make my life with the systems I manage much easier .
This does look interesting though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not in a rush for bind10 - I find bind9 to be quite sufficient, on the whole.
I do look forward to seeing what it brings and how it may make my life with the systems I manage much easier.
This does look interesting though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550400</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1269109620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I'm pretty sure BIND 9 was advertised as a near-complete rewrite too.</p><p>That said, I'm not touching either version ever again after using <a href="http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html" title="cr.yp.to">http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html</a> [cr.yp.to]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I 'm pretty sure BIND 9 was advertised as a near-complete rewrite too.That said , I 'm not touching either version ever again after using http : //cr.yp.to/djbdns.html [ cr.yp.to ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I'm pretty sure BIND 9 was advertised as a near-complete rewrite too.That said, I'm not touching either version ever again after using http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html [cr.yp.to]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548968</id>
	<title>PowerDNS</title>
	<author>sateh</author>
	<datestamp>1269094440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I switched to PowerDNS a long time ago and never really looked back at Bind. PowerDNS is awesome. It is fast, modern and has much less of a buggy/exploity reputation as Bind has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched to PowerDNS a long time ago and never really looked back at Bind .
PowerDNS is awesome .
It is fast , modern and has much less of a buggy/exploity reputation as Bind has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched to PowerDNS a long time ago and never really looked back at Bind.
PowerDNS is awesome.
It is fast, modern and has much less of a buggy/exploity reputation as Bind has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546762</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  "Riddled with bugs"?  The implication is that nobody at ISC knows how to write good software.  Not really surprising.  Bind 4 was a mess.  Bind 8 was a mess.  Bind 9 was a mess.</p><p>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Einstein)</p><p>They need to start over using <strong>sane</strong> software design methodology.  That probably means hiring competent software engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
" Riddled with bugs " ?
The implication is that nobody at ISC knows how to write good software .
Not really surprising .
Bind 4 was a mess .
Bind 8 was a mess .
Bind 9 was a mess .
" Insanity : doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results .
" ( Einstein ) They need to start over using sane software design methodology .
That probably means hiring competent software engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
"Riddled with bugs"?
The implication is that nobody at ISC knows how to write good software.
Not really surprising.
Bind 4 was a mess.
Bind 8 was a mess.
Bind 9 was a mess.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
" (Einstein)They need to start over using sane software design methodology.
That probably means hiring competent software engineers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</id>
	<title>Great.  Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at, and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.</p><p>Nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at , and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at, and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546766</id>
	<title>Difficult to work with</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> 'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs.'           Why does this statement make me so happy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>'This code is not intended for general use , and is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs .
' Why does this statement make me so happy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs.
'           Why does this statement make me so happy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547600</id>
	<title>Re:What's so hard about this?</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269024360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all I agree, building a webserver for something as critically important as a DNS resolver is completely asshat if that is what they are doing.</p><p>But I disagree with you.  Any dns resolver should be as complete an island as possible, depending on as little as possible, the fewer other subsystems it has to rely on the less points of failure there are.</p><p>This should be a very straight forward hash table, loaded from into ram, all entries mapped to either upper or lower case and then the queries hashed and they are either in memory or not return the corresponding IP address or return null.  This is not rocket science, it is a simple lookup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all I agree , building a webserver for something as critically important as a DNS resolver is completely asshat if that is what they are doing.But I disagree with you .
Any dns resolver should be as complete an island as possible , depending on as little as possible , the fewer other subsystems it has to rely on the less points of failure there are.This should be a very straight forward hash table , loaded from into ram , all entries mapped to either upper or lower case and then the queries hashed and they are either in memory or not return the corresponding IP address or return null .
This is not rocket science , it is a simple lookup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all I agree, building a webserver for something as critically important as a DNS resolver is completely asshat if that is what they are doing.But I disagree with you.
Any dns resolver should be as complete an island as possible, depending on as little as possible, the fewer other subsystems it has to rely on the less points of failure there are.This should be a very straight forward hash table, loaded from into ram, all entries mapped to either upper or lower case and then the queries hashed and they are either in memory or not return the corresponding IP address or return null.
This is not rocket science, it is a simple lookup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546654</id>
	<title>How</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that pronounced? Does it rhyme with sinned or blind ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that pronounced ?
Does it rhyme with sinned or blind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that pronounced?
Does it rhyme with sinned or blind ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547350</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1269020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"matured" indeed. bind is known for carrying plentiful amounts of exploits to the point of MS Exchange/IE. It's coders must be basement dwellers because by now they should know how to create and follow a process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" matured " indeed .
bind is known for carrying plentiful amounts of exploits to the point of MS Exchange/IE .
It 's coders must be basement dwellers because by now they should know how to create and follow a process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"matured" indeed.
bind is known for carrying plentiful amounts of exploits to the point of MS Exchange/IE.
It's coders must be basement dwellers because by now they should know how to create and follow a process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546742</id>
	<title>Difficult to work with?</title>
	<author>brunoacf</author>
	<datestamp>1269012420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs</i>
<br> <br>
Inefficiency and bugs are common characteristics of alpha/beta code. But what do you mean when you say "difficult to work with"? A code that is difficult to understand/maintain/evolve?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This code is not intended for general use , and is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs Inefficiency and bugs are common characteristics of alpha/beta code .
But what do you mean when you say " difficult to work with " ?
A code that is difficult to understand/maintain/evolve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs
 
Inefficiency and bugs are common characteristics of alpha/beta code.
But what do you mean when you say "difficult to work with"?
A code that is difficult to understand/maintain/evolve?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31560936</id>
	<title>Re:Future direction?</title>
	<author>mysticalreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1269171000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.</p></div><p>This doesn't compute for me.  DNShas different record types to deal with the issue you are suggesting.</p><p>Animportant resource record type is the INA. (IN is the 'internet' class).  This is probably the most heavily used record type.</p><p>So here's an example:<br>www.kame.net.        86365    IN    A    203.178.141.194</p><p>If you have a web browser, it will often query the system resolver for a an A record.  This is an IPv4 address.  But if the browser wants, it will query for an AAAA record, like this:<br>www.kame.net.        86400    IN    AAAA    2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085</p><p>So, my point is, the version of BIND has no relevance on IPv4 addresses, and IPv6 addresses.  It's the query type that determines that. That is part of DNS, and universal to all DNSsoftware.</p><p>P.S. a web-browser could query for both A and AAAA records, and have a preference of one or the other set</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I 'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.This does n't compute for me .
DNShas different record types to deal with the issue you are suggesting.Animportant resource record type is the INA .
( IN is the 'internet ' class ) .
This is probably the most heavily used record type.So here 's an example : www.kame.net .
86365 IN A 203.178.141.194If you have a web browser , it will often query the system resolver for a an A record .
This is an IPv4 address .
But if the browser wants , it will query for an AAAA record , like this : www.kame.net .
86400 IN AAAA 2001 : 200 : 0 : 8002 : 203 : 47ff : fea5 : 3085So , my point is , the version of BIND has no relevance on IPv4 addresses , and IPv6 addresses .
It 's the query type that determines that .
That is part of DNS , and universal to all DNSsoftware.P.S .
a web-browser could query for both A and AAAA records , and have a preference of one or the other set</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNS for IPv6 will have to know a whole lot more about which address to dish out 1st than current versions of BIND and I'm not sure how long it will take to get a good handle on that problem.This doesn't compute for me.
DNShas different record types to deal with the issue you are suggesting.Animportant resource record type is the INA.
(IN is the 'internet' class).
This is probably the most heavily used record type.So here's an example:www.kame.net.
86365    IN    A    203.178.141.194If you have a web browser, it will often query the system resolver for a an A record.
This is an IPv4 address.
But if the browser wants, it will query for an AAAA record, like this:www.kame.net.
86400    IN    AAAA    2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085So, my point is, the version of BIND has no relevance on IPv4 addresses, and IPv6 addresses.
It's the query type that determines that.
That is part of DNS, and universal to all DNSsoftware.P.S.
a web-browser could query for both A and AAAA records, and have a preference of one or the other set
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547152</id>
	<title>Again?</title>
	<author>biot</author>
	<datestamp>1269016920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They rewrote it from the ground up *again*? Clearly the last few times they did that didn't help. Why should this time be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They rewrote it from the ground up * again * ?
Clearly the last few times they did that did n't help .
Why should this time be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They rewrote it from the ground up *again*?
Clearly the last few times they did that didn't help.
Why should this time be any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31551408</id>
	<title>Re:DJB might agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269116940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISC never learns. It's in their interest. Complexity and bugs means constant support contracts, means money. If ISC wrote small, secure software like djbdns they wouldn't be able to make money on support contracts.</p><p>Also we now have</p><p>http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/nsd/</p><p>We don't need this BIND garbage when we have djbdns and nsd. nsd is already imported into OpenBSD and will likely replace BIND. Same goes for Sendmail. These two monstrosities - BIND and Sendmail have been shaming UNIX for ever. Don't forget ISC's excellent DHCP crap either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISC never learns .
It 's in their interest .
Complexity and bugs means constant support contracts , means money .
If ISC wrote small , secure software like djbdns they would n't be able to make money on support contracts.Also we now havehttp : //www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/nsd/We do n't need this BIND garbage when we have djbdns and nsd .
nsd is already imported into OpenBSD and will likely replace BIND .
Same goes for Sendmail .
These two monstrosities - BIND and Sendmail have been shaming UNIX for ever .
Do n't forget ISC 's excellent DHCP crap either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISC never learns.
It's in their interest.
Complexity and bugs means constant support contracts, means money.
If ISC wrote small, secure software like djbdns they wouldn't be able to make money on support contracts.Also we now havehttp://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/nsd/We don't need this BIND garbage when we have djbdns and nsd.
nsd is already imported into OpenBSD and will likely replace BIND.
Same goes for Sendmail.
These two monstrosities - BIND and Sendmail have been shaming UNIX for ever.
Don't forget ISC's excellent DHCP crap either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548596</id>
	<title>Re:Years?</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1269089460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, if you want it to simply carry out lookups and return answers then fair enough.</p><p>If how ever you want to do more a quick set of things to consider (this is purely off the top of my head)</p><p>0. Security<br>1. Validation of the various record types<br>2. Caching of lookups<br>3. Proper use of the dns heirarchy<br>4. Security<br>5. Should be easy to manage<br>6. Zone transfers<br>7. Speed... slow dns will be no use to man nor beast<br>8. Security<br>9. Compliant to the relevant RFC's<br>10. Dynamic DNS support</p><p>Ok, I've put security in a few times but its vital enough and hard to get right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , if you want it to simply carry out lookups and return answers then fair enough.If how ever you want to do more a quick set of things to consider ( this is purely off the top of my head ) 0 .
Security1. Validation of the various record types2 .
Caching of lookups3 .
Proper use of the dns heirarchy4 .
Security5. Should be easy to manage6 .
Zone transfers7 .
Speed... slow dns will be no use to man nor beast8 .
Security9. Compliant to the relevant RFC's10 .
Dynamic DNS supportOk , I 've put security in a few times but its vital enough and hard to get right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, if you want it to simply carry out lookups and return answers then fair enough.If how ever you want to do more a quick set of things to consider (this is purely off the top of my head)0.
Security1. Validation of the various record types2.
Caching of lookups3.
Proper use of the dns heirarchy4.
Security5. Should be easy to manage6.
Zone transfers7.
Speed... slow dns will be no use to man nor beast8.
Security9. Compliant to the relevant RFC's10.
Dynamic DNS supportOk, I've put security in a few times but its vital enough and hard to get right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547726</id>
	<title>+1 insightful</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1269026340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they didn't get it right after nine versions then it's probably time to move on.</p><p><b>"...is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs"</b></p><p>Make that "definitely".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did n't get it right after nine versions then it 's probably time to move on .
" ...is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs " Make that " definitely " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they didn't get it right after nine versions then it's probably time to move on.
"...is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs"Make that "definitely".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547396</id>
	<title>Re:DJB might agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but any version of Bind has the advantage that it's not encumbered by DJB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but any version of Bind has the advantage that it 's not encumbered by DJB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but any version of Bind has the advantage that it's not encumbered by DJB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547902</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1269115980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure - new codebase, new bugs. A given. What isn't given is why the original developers thought this was a good idea? None of the answers to that question that I can think of are complimentary to what is now core infrastructure to the Internet. Was it not modularly written? Was it horribly insecure, and so badly so that it wasn't considered worth extending?</p><p>Bind is now in its tenth revision. You'd think by now that some sort of good, workable framework or design pattern would have evolved by now?</p><p>But clearly, it hasn't, and clearly, after several rewrites, it's *still* not considered worthy of being extended or refactored rather than rewritten. This bespeaks (to me) a well of WTFs, in light of <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">the idea that you should basically <b>never rewrite your software</b> </a> [joelonsoftware.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure - new codebase , new bugs .
A given .
What is n't given is why the original developers thought this was a good idea ?
None of the answers to that question that I can think of are complimentary to what is now core infrastructure to the Internet .
Was it not modularly written ?
Was it horribly insecure , and so badly so that it was n't considered worth extending ? Bind is now in its tenth revision .
You 'd think by now that some sort of good , workable framework or design pattern would have evolved by now ? But clearly , it has n't , and clearly , after several rewrites , it 's * still * not considered worthy of being extended or refactored rather than rewritten .
This bespeaks ( to me ) a well of WTFs , in light of the idea that you should basically never rewrite your software [ joelonsoftware.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure - new codebase, new bugs.
A given.
What isn't given is why the original developers thought this was a good idea?
None of the answers to that question that I can think of are complimentary to what is now core infrastructure to the Internet.
Was it not modularly written?
Was it horribly insecure, and so badly so that it wasn't considered worth extending?Bind is now in its tenth revision.
You'd think by now that some sort of good, workable framework or design pattern would have evolved by now?But clearly, it hasn't, and clearly, after several rewrites, it's *still* not considered worthy of being extended or refactored rather than rewritten.
This bespeaks (to me) a well of WTFs, in light of the idea that you should basically never rewrite your software  [joelonsoftware.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366</id>
	<title>Years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of years</p></div><p>I admit complete ignorance in this area, so please educate me if this sounds stupid -- but surely writing a DNS server can't be that hard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of yearsI admit complete ignorance in this area , so please educate me if this sounds stupid -- but surely writing a DNS server ca n't be that hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These problems will all be fixed over the next couple of yearsI admit complete ignorance in this area, so please educate me if this sounds stupid -- but surely writing a DNS server can't be that hard?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547014</id>
	<title>What's the point of a rewrite...</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if you're doing it to end up with new code that is "inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs"?</p><p>Was the original code too efficient, well-commented and well-tested and they couldn't live with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if you 're doing it to end up with new code that is " inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs " ? Was the original code too efficient , well-commented and well-tested and they could n't live with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if you're doing it to end up with new code that is "inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs"?Was the original code too efficient, well-commented and well-tested and they couldn't live with that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548388</id>
	<title>Re:What's so hard about this?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1269084300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNS is not naturally a data structure suitable for relational databases. Any SQL is a bad choice because SQL is a bad choice. Something like Berkeley DB might have been better, or perhaps some of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL" title="wikipedia.org">these</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNS is not naturally a data structure suitable for relational databases .
Any SQL is a bad choice because SQL is a bad choice .
Something like Berkeley DB might have been better , or perhaps some of these [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNS is not naturally a data structure suitable for relational databases.
Any SQL is a bad choice because SQL is a bad choice.
Something like Berkeley DB might have been better, or perhaps some of these [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547310</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269019620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turned you down, did they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turned you down , did they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turned you down, did they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547150</id>
	<title>Re:Great. Just what the DNS infrastructure needs</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If everyone subscribed to that logic, we would not have Postfix, Firefox, lighttpd, or any other number of important open source Internet software projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone subscribed to that logic , we would not have Postfix , Firefox , lighttpd , or any other number of important open source Internet software projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone subscribed to that logic, we would not have Postfix, Firefox, lighttpd, or any other number of important open source Internet software projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548364</id>
	<title>But what about the bloat?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1269083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no mention of the bloat of BIND9.  Will it be carried into BIND10?  Are they reimplementing all the bloat from the ground up?</p><p>I'll stick with <a href="http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/nsd/" title="nlnetlabs.nl">NSD</a> [nlnetlabs.nl] and <a href="http://unbound.net/" title="unbound.net">Unbound</a> [unbound.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no mention of the bloat of BIND9 .
Will it be carried into BIND10 ?
Are they reimplementing all the bloat from the ground up ? I 'll stick with NSD [ nlnetlabs.nl ] and Unbound [ unbound.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no mention of the bloat of BIND9.
Will it be carried into BIND10?
Are they reimplementing all the bloat from the ground up?I'll stick with NSD [nlnetlabs.nl] and Unbound [unbound.net].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356</id>
	<title>What's so hard about this?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269020340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Most of the trouble with BIND stems from the fact that it's a database app with its own database implementation.  BIND10 uses SQLite, which already works.  That ought to simplify the thing enormously.
</p><p>
Building in a web server for BIND administration is probably the source of much of the complexity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the trouble with BIND stems from the fact that it 's a database app with its own database implementation .
BIND10 uses SQLite , which already works .
That ought to simplify the thing enormously .
Building in a web server for BIND administration is probably the source of much of the complexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Most of the trouble with BIND stems from the fact that it's a database app with its own database implementation.
BIND10 uses SQLite, which already works.
That ought to simplify the thing enormously.
Building in a web server for BIND administration is probably the source of much of the complexity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547090</id>
	<title>A Monument to "Software Engineering"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BIND is thirty years old and a core piece of Internet infrastructure.  That a completely new design and re-write of such a fundamentally important piece of software is "<i>inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs</i>" highlights the continuing immaturity of the computer software industry.</p><p>This should be an embarrassment to every software designer, Google, IBM, and Microsoft should be screaming out how this is making the entire industry look bad.</p><p>Wouldn't this be an ideal target for test driven development, or are we to praise that at least they aware of defects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BIND is thirty years old and a core piece of Internet infrastructure .
That a completely new design and re-write of such a fundamentally important piece of software is " inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs " highlights the continuing immaturity of the computer software industry.This should be an embarrassment to every software designer , Google , IBM , and Microsoft should be screaming out how this is making the entire industry look bad.Would n't this be an ideal target for test driven development , or are we to praise that at least they aware of defects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BIND is thirty years old and a core piece of Internet infrastructure.
That a completely new design and re-write of such a fundamentally important piece of software is "inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs" highlights the continuing immaturity of the computer software industry.This should be an embarrassment to every software designer, Google, IBM, and Microsoft should be screaming out how this is making the entire industry look bad.Wouldn't this be an ideal target for test driven development, or are we to praise that at least they aware of defects?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547468</id>
	<title>Re:Years?</title>
	<author>Ethanol</author>
	<datestamp>1269022320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>surely writing a DNS server can't be that hard?</p></div><p>Try it some time!  It's fun!  I can even refer you to an ongoing open-source project that you can contribute to, if you like!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>To give a rough idea of scale, BIND 9 has about half a million lines of C code, and the first release took a couple of years to write.</p><p>(BIND 10, in its current minimal and unfinished state, is about 40,000 lines of C++, and 10,000 lines of python.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>surely writing a DNS server ca n't be that hard ? Try it some time !
It 's fun !
I can even refer you to an ongoing open-source project that you can contribute to , if you like !
: ) To give a rough idea of scale , BIND 9 has about half a million lines of C code , and the first release took a couple of years to write .
( BIND 10 , in its current minimal and unfinished state , is about 40,000 lines of C + + , and 10,000 lines of python .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>surely writing a DNS server can't be that hard?Try it some time!
It's fun!
I can even refer you to an ongoing open-source project that you can contribute to, if you like!
:)To give a rough idea of scale, BIND 9 has about half a million lines of C code, and the first release took a couple of years to write.
(BIND 10, in its current minimal and unfinished state, is about 40,000 lines of C++, and 10,000 lines of python.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547158</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point of a rewrite...</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. Why make a new code from scratch, if the result is <i>again</i> difficult to use, incomplete and full of bugs? It makes no sense to me. Even in a beta state, the new code should be better than the previous one to justify its development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Why make a new code from scratch , if the result is again difficult to use , incomplete and full of bugs ?
It makes no sense to me .
Even in a beta state , the new code should be better than the previous one to justify its development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Why make a new code from scratch, if the result is again difficult to use, incomplete and full of bugs?
It makes no sense to me.
Even in a beta state, the new code should be better than the previous one to justify its development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546694</id>
	<title>DJB?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No djb tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No djb tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No djb tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546904</id>
	<title>djbdns users register here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes, we realize djbdns is far more secure.  And that DJB is ornery.</p><p>Instead of peppering the whole forum with "djbdns is great", just respond to this thread.</p><p>Frist!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes , we realize djbdns is far more secure .
And that DJB is ornery.Instead of peppering the whole forum with " djbdns is great " , just respond to this thread.Frist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes, we realize djbdns is far more secure.
And that DJB is ornery.Instead of peppering the whole forum with "djbdns is great", just respond to this thread.Frist!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic? Were they worried that BIND might be losing its rich reputation as the worst piece of widely-used network software ever made? If so, bravo, guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic ?
Were they worried that BIND might be losing its rich reputation as the worst piece of widely-used network software ever made ?
If so , bravo , guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they even release it if their ground-up rewrite is so pathetic?
Were they worried that BIND might be losing its rich reputation as the worst piece of widely-used network software ever made?
If so, bravo, guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546770</id>
	<title>how many times are they going to rewrite it?</title>
	<author>mlong</author>
	<datestamp>1269012720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought bind 9 was a rewrite from scratch? They did such a crappy job, they have to do it again for 10?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought bind 9 was a rewrite from scratch ?
They did such a crappy job , they have to do it again for 10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought bind 9 was a rewrite from scratch?
They did such a crappy job, they have to do it again for 10?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549028</id>
	<title>Re:Does not look great, honestly.</title>
	<author>sateh</author>
	<datestamp>1269095220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PowerDNS does scripting.</p><p>You can write DNS logic in Lua. You can use it to write backend that capture spelling mistakes, do redirection, catch and act on NXDOMAINS, etc.</p><p>Thanks to the Lua/scripting support, a lot of companies are replacing their legacy commercial Nominum servers/licenses with PowerDNS. I performs same or better on simple modern hardware while not costing a truckload of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PowerDNS does scripting.You can write DNS logic in Lua .
You can use it to write backend that capture spelling mistakes , do redirection , catch and act on NXDOMAINS , etc.Thanks to the Lua/scripting support , a lot of companies are replacing their legacy commercial Nominum servers/licenses with PowerDNS .
I performs same or better on simple modern hardware while not costing a truckload of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PowerDNS does scripting.You can write DNS logic in Lua.
You can use it to write backend that capture spelling mistakes, do redirection, catch and act on NXDOMAINS, etc.Thanks to the Lua/scripting support, a lot of companies are replacing their legacy commercial Nominum servers/licenses with PowerDNS.
I performs same or better on simple modern hardware while not costing a truckload of dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547474</id>
	<title>Re:DJB might agree</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1269022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could apply to any version of BIND.</p></div><p>That was my first thought, having given up on BIND years ago in favor of the vastly more efficient, user-friendly, and -- most importantly -- bug free djbdns.</p><p>After <i>all this time</i>, the best they can do is something they themselves admit is crap, and they plan to take years to make it less crappy? That's really stunning, and not in a good way. We are, after all, talking about a key/value store. Thank goodness they didn't try something that wasn't appallingly well-understood already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could apply to any version of BIND.That was my first thought , having given up on BIND years ago in favor of the vastly more efficient , user-friendly , and -- most importantly -- bug free djbdns.After all this time , the best they can do is something they themselves admit is crap , and they plan to take years to make it less crappy ?
That 's really stunning , and not in a good way .
We are , after all , talking about a key/value store .
Thank goodness they did n't try something that was n't appallingly well-understood already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could apply to any version of BIND.That was my first thought, having given up on BIND years ago in favor of the vastly more efficient, user-friendly, and -- most importantly -- bug free djbdns.After all this time, the best they can do is something they themselves admit is crap, and they plan to take years to make it less crappy?
That's really stunning, and not in a good way.
We are, after all, talking about a key/value store.
Thank goodness they didn't try something that wasn't appallingly well-understood already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546898</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with sendmail?<br>Too hard for you, no gui?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with sendmail ? Too hard for you , no gui ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with sendmail?Too hard for you, no gui?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548142</id>
	<title>riddled with bugs</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1269078660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs.'</p></div><p>If this is indeed a true statement this code is doomed and should be thrown away right now.</p><p>If they don't do it right from the start they will spend the rest of forever turd-polishing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'This code is not intended for general use , and is known to be inefficient , difficult to work with , and riddled with bugs .
'If this is indeed a true statement this code is doomed and should be thrown away right now.If they do n't do it right from the start they will spend the rest of forever turd-polishing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This code is not intended for general use, and is known to be inefficient, difficult to work with, and riddled with bugs.
'If this is indeed a true statement this code is doomed and should be thrown away right now.If they don't do it right from the start they will spend the rest of forever turd-polishing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547254</id>
	<title>Re:How</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not short for "Binderjit Singh" so you should pronounce it as the word "bind" which only has one pronunciation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not short for " Binderjit Singh " so you should pronounce it as the word " bind " which only has one pronunciation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not short for "Binderjit Singh" so you should pronounce it as the word "bind" which only has one pronunciation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548554</id>
	<title>Bind?</title>
	<author>chrysalis</author>
	<datestamp>1269088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there still a lot of Bind users out there?</p><p>NSD and Unbound are way better, but they aren't the only worthy alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there still a lot of Bind users out there ? NSD and Unbound are way better , but they are n't the only worthy alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there still a lot of Bind users out there?NSD and Unbound are way better, but they aren't the only worthy alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547378</id>
	<title>What is being thrown out?</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1269020760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which major features in bind9 are going to be thrown out (and stay out even beyond beta) for bind10?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which major features in bind9 are going to be thrown out ( and stay out even beyond beta ) for bind10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which major features in bind9 are going to be thrown out (and stay out even beyond beta) for bind10?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31560936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31551408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0123240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31549604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31560936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31551408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31550400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31547492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0123240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31548112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0123240.31546898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
