Re: No more support for windows
You might want to consider using the BIND9 docker image. With docker and kubernetes which has an internal load balancer you can run this on any Windows platform and don't need anything special. You point to the IP address of the kubernetes load balancer and it takes care of where to find the docker named image. This is separate from the utilities like dig. Setting up the configuration and the zones is a little more work but you won't need to worry about keeping uptodate on the Windows images. Danny On 6/10/21 10:19 AM, Timothe Litt wrote: On 09-Jun-21 18:46, Richard T.A. Neal wrote: Evan Hunt wrote: My understanding is BIND will still run fine under WSL; it's only the native Visual Studio builds that we're removing. For people who want to run named on windows, WSL seems like the best way to go. Sadly no. To quote myself from an earlier email on this topic: There are two versions of WSL: WSL1 and WSL2. Development has all but ceased on WSL1, but WSL1 is the only version that can be installed on Windows Server 2019. Microsoft have not yet confirmed whether WSL2 will be available for Windows Server vNext (Windows Server 2022, or whatever they name it). Even if WSL2 is made available for Windows Server 2022 it has some serious networking limitations: it uses NAT from the host, so your Linux instance gets a private 172.x.y.z style IP address, and that IP address is different every reboot. Proxy port forwarding must therefore be reconfigured on every reboot as well. Personally I'm comfortable with the decision that's been made and I understand the logic. Saddened, like saying goodbye to an old friend, but comfortable. Richard. As I suggested early on, it would be great if the tools could somehow be available as native binaries. Sounds like there's progress there - thanks Evan! As for running a BIND server, all things considered it seems to me that the simplest approach is to create a bare-bones VM running Linux. Run that on the windows server (use VMware, VirtualBox) If the only things running in that machine are named, a firewall, a text editor, logwatch, and backups, there's really not much effort in keeping that machine running. Just remember to do a distribution update once in a while (e.g. dnf update/apt-get, etc). You might want to keep SeLinux/Apparmor, but with no other services, it may not be worth the effort. You can tailor Linux distributions down to a very minimal set of services. It's often done for embedded applications. You can even do the backups by snapshoting the VM. You can update the zone files via UPDATE. You can update the config (and zone files if you like) in the VM, or via an exported directory from the Windoze host. (E.g. VirtualBox does this trivially.) This would completely eliminate the complexity of dealing with the Windows networking stack - the Linux machine (and named) just see an ethernet adapter (or two, or...) on the host's network. (Mechanically, the VM's "adapter" injects and retrieves raw ethernet packets into the driver stack very close to the wire.) No NAT or proxy (unless you want it, in which case it can be static.) And whatever kernel features/networking libraries ISC uses are just there - no porting. I haven't measured performance, but I do run my Linux machines in VirtualBox VMs (mostly hosted on a Linux server, but some on Windows). I haven't run into issues - but then I'm not a big operator. I do use CPUs (and IO) with hardware virtualization support. In any case, the workload on ISC would be zero - unless they choose to provide the VM (there are portable formats). That work might be something that someone who wants a Windows solution could afford to sponsor. The biggest part would be scripting packaging from the selected distro and a test system. Plus a bit of keeping it up-to-date. And documentation. Optionally, someone might want to do some configuration/performance tuning - but most of that is what ISC does anyway inside the VM. Again, the work would seem to be something that the Windows community could donate and/or sponsor. It might even be the case that ISC could use the same VM as part of its test suite - many CI engines are using that approach to get wide coverage with minimal hardware. (The CI folks, like GitHub Actions, GitLab, etc spin up a VM, install the OS and minimal packages, then run your tests.) I confess that this is a practical approach - it won't satisfy those who insist on a "pure" windows solution. (Though I bet if you looked inside their routers, storage, phone systems, and certainly cars there'd be Linux purring away under the hood...) Nor anyone who thinks that the status quo is ideal or that only a "no effort" solution is acceptable. Anyhow, it's not an attempt to start a religious war or to prolong the debate on what ISC does. It assumes BIND won't support windows, that WSL is imperfect, and that an alternative to complaining mi
Re: RE: No more support for windows
On 09-Jun-21 18:46, Richard T.A. Neal wrote: > Evan Hunt wrote: > >>> My understanding is BIND will still run fine under WSL; it's only the >>> native Visual Studio builds that we're removing. >>> For people who want to run named on windows, WSL seems like the best way to >>> go. > Sadly no. To quote myself from an earlier email on this topic: > > There are two versions of WSL: WSL1 and WSL2. Development has all but ceased > on WSL1, but WSL1 is the only version that can be installed on Windows Server > 2019. > > Microsoft have not yet confirmed whether WSL2 will be available for Windows > Server vNext (Windows Server 2022, or whatever they name it). > > Even if WSL2 is made available for Windows Server 2022 it has some serious > networking limitations: it uses NAT from the host, so your Linux instance > gets a private 172.x.y.z style IP address, and that IP address is different > every reboot. Proxy port forwarding must therefore be reconfigured on every > reboot as well. > > Personally I'm comfortable with the decision that's been made and I > understand the logic. Saddened, like saying goodbye to an old friend, but > comfortable. > > Richard. As I suggested early on, it would be great if the tools could somehow be available as native binaries. Sounds like there's progress there - thanks Evan! As for running a BIND server, all things considered it seems to me that the simplest approach is to create a bare-bones VM running Linux. Run that on the windows server (use VMware, VirtualBox) If the only things running in that machine are named, a firewall, a text editor, logwatch, and backups, there's really not much effort in keeping that machine running. Just remember to do a distribution update once in a while (e.g. dnf update/apt-get, etc). You might want to keep SeLinux/Apparmor, but with no other services, it may not be worth the effort. You can tailor Linux distributions down to a very minimal set of services. It's often done for embedded applications. You can even do the backups by snapshoting the VM. You can update the zone files via UPDATE. You can update the config (and zone files if you like) in the VM, or via an exported directory from the Windoze host. (E.g. VirtualBox does this trivially.) This would completely eliminate the complexity of dealing with the Windows networking stack - the Linux machine (and named) just see an ethernet adapter (or two, or...) on the host's network. (Mechanically, the VM's "adapter" injects and retrieves raw ethernet packets into the driver stack very close to the wire.) No NAT or proxy (unless you want it, in which case it can be static.) And whatever kernel features/networking libraries ISC uses are just there - no porting. I haven't measured performance, but I do run my Linux machines in VirtualBox VMs (mostly hosted on a Linux server, but some on Windows). I haven't run into issues - but then I'm not a big operator. I do use CPUs (and IO) with hardware virtualization support. In any case, the workload on ISC would be zero - unless they choose to provide the VM (there are portable formats). That work might be something that someone who wants a Windows solution could afford to sponsor. The biggest part would be scripting packaging from the selected distro and a test system. Plus a bit of keeping it up-to-date. And documentation. Optionally, someone might want to do some configuration/performance tuning - but most of that is what ISC does anyway inside the VM. Again, the work would seem to be something that the Windows community could donate and/or sponsor. It might even be the case that ISC could use the same VM as part of its test suite - many CI engines are using that approach to get wide coverage with minimal hardware. (The CI folks, like GitHub Actions, GitLab, etc spin up a VM, install the OS and minimal packages, then run your tests.) I confess that this is a practical approach - it won't satisfy those who insist on a "pure" windows solution. (Though I bet if you looked inside their routers, storage, phone systems, and certainly cars there'd be Linux purring away under the hood...) Nor anyone who thinks that the status quo is ideal or that only a "no effort" solution is acceptable. Anyhow, it's not an attempt to start a religious war or to prolong the debate on what ISC does. It assumes BIND won't support windows, that WSL is imperfect, and that an alternative to complaining might be helpful... Feel free to s/Linux/(Solaris|FreeBSD|VMS|yourfavorite/g. I don't have a need for BIND (except the tools) under Windows, so I'm not volunteering to implement this. FWIW. Timothe Litt ACM Distinguished Engineer -- This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscrib
RE: No more support for windows
Evan Hunt wrote: >> My understanding is BIND will still run fine under WSL; it's only the native >> Visual Studio builds that we're removing. >> For people who want to run named on windows, WSL seems like the best way to >> go. Sadly no. To quote myself from an earlier email on this topic: There are two versions of WSL: WSL1 and WSL2. Development has all but ceased on WSL1, but WSL1 is the only version that can be installed on Windows Server 2019. Microsoft have not yet confirmed whether WSL2 will be available for Windows Server vNext (Windows Server 2022, or whatever they name it). Even if WSL2 is made available for Windows Server 2022 it has some serious networking limitations: it uses NAT from the host, so your Linux instance gets a private 172.x.y.z style IP address, and that IP address is different every reboot. Proxy port forwarding must therefore be reconfigured on every reboot as well. Personally I'm comfortable with the decision that's been made and I understand the logic. Saddened, like saying goodbye to an old friend, but comfortable. Richard. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 07:14:02PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Certainly you tried Cygwin and WSL[*]. What's wrong with them? > (Isn't Windows a kind of Unix any more? ;-) My understanding is BIND will still run fine under WSL; it's only the native Visual Studio builds that we're removing. For people who want to run named on windows, WSL seems like the best way to go. Personally, I'd like to see dig, delv, nsupdate, and the other tools remain available as native windows binaries. Sometime before 9.16 reaches end of life, I'll try to get them to build under MinGW. (I'd be happy to get help with that project from anyone who knows windows better than I do - it wouldn't take much.) -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
On Fri 04/Jun/2021 22:51:01 +0200 Ondřej Surý wrote: And if I had to answer the question whether I and my team should spend time improving BIND 9 just for everybody or invest the precious time into fixing yet another incompatibility between POSIX/SUSv2 and Windows world, I think the answer would be always: Let’s improve things for majority of our users. It’s just simple as that. Certainly you tried Cygwin and WSL[*]. What's wrong with them? (Isn't Windows a kind of Unix any more? ;-) Best Ale -- [*] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/faq ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows - Yay
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021, Reindl Harald wrote: besides that - i didn't hear a serious reasoning for a native named binary on windows these days and given there are tons of ways running a linux binary compared to 20 years ago i call it a waste of time * more complex code implies more errors some errors being security-related, which in the case of BIND servers used by MANY users is a very bad situation. Furthermore, are there even any 'important' Windows primary servers, that serve the open internet or many users (authoritative or resolving) - but rather only serve closed/internal private or commercial interests? If some entity is already wasting money on MS software and licenses and BIND is important to them, then they should also support development and pay for support just like they pay MS. I do believe ISC should be more clear about the intended platforms for BIND. It's not a crime to not support one corporation's specific and different platform. Brett ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
Am 05.06.21 um 19:15 schrieb Ondřej Surý: Folks, I would appreciate if we can say on the topic. Specifically, I consider this rhetorical discussion on the meaning of the word “portable” neither useful to the subscribers of this list nor productive. besides that - i didn't hear a serious reasoning for a native named binary on windows these days and given there are tons of ways running a linux binary compared to 20 years ago i call it a waste of time * it eats time better invested * it makes code more complex * more complex code implies more errors ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
Folks, I would appreciate if we can say on the topic. Specifically, I consider this rhetorical discussion on the meaning of the word “portable” neither useful to the subscribers of this list nor productive. Thanks, -- Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > On 5. 6. 2021, at 18:38, Paul Kosinski via bind-users > wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:58:40 -0700 > Gregory Sloop wrote: > >> This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that >> you're asking (or making a point) in good faith. >> >> So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge. >> >> So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc. >> And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc. >> >> I'd consider that highly portable. > > > I'd consider it moderately portable. > > Among Open Source software, I'd consider the following highly portable: > Firefox, Chromium, LibreOffice, Thunderbird, Claws-Mail, Scribus, Inkscape, > Gimp, Krita, VLC, QT(!) and who knows how many others that run on Unix-like > systems *and* on Windows. > > And among closed source software, Chrome is obviously highly portable (by > Google), and Acrobat Reader and Flash (RIP) are highly portable (by Adobe). > > P.S. I am not a fan of Windows, but it is widespread, and many people even > use it for Internet servers. > ___ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:58:40 -0700 Gregory Sloop wrote: > This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that > you're asking (or making a point) in good faith. > > So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge. > > So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc. > And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc. > > I'd consider that highly portable. I'd consider it moderately portable. Among Open Source software, I'd consider the following highly portable: Firefox, Chromium, LibreOffice, Thunderbird, Claws-Mail, Scribus, Inkscape, Gimp, Krita, VLC, QT(!) and who knows how many others that run on Unix-like systems *and* on Windows. And among closed source software, Chrome is obviously highly portable (by Google), and Acrobat Reader and Flash (RIP) are highly portable (by Adobe). P.S. I am not a fan of Windows, but it is widespread, and many people even use it for Internet servers. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
> Peter, > > > do you seriously think that this word play is going to help the BIND 9 > support for Windows? So, I am asking you, what’s your serious > proposal what should we do? > You may regard it as a word play but I am being very serious indeed. I have looked high up and low down for a definition of what BIND is and what it does and the most specific and succinct one I could find is the one which I quoted. If it was a true definintion of BIND, I would be very pleased because I would have found exactly what I was looking for. My serious proposal on what you should do now is that you should come up with a proper description/definition of BIND which considers carefully whether it should be described as "highly portable" or whether it it would be more accurately described as closely wedded to the Unix world and likely to become increasingly difficult to use anywhere outside this world as time goes forward. How can people know whether they want to contribute to something if there is no clear and accurate definition of what it the something is or if at best the definition means different things to different people? Is it not in everybody's interest that we all know exactly what we are talking about? (For the record, I personally have no interest in BIND 9 support specifically for Windows.) > > I’ve had asked if people are willing to invest time, effort or money > into keeping the Windows support alive. I would rather accept an > external contributor with a commitment rather than just a fat cheque, > because Windows support isn’t really something we are putting our > heart in. > My point is that if BIND is "highly portable", a contributor's heart would be in making it making it work on a wide variety of platforms, not on making it work a specific platform that they have a particular interest in. > > The ISC is working on improving BIND 9 day and night (in fact, it’s > almost 11pm here), and we are spread thin, and we have to prioritise. > And if I had to answer the question whether I and my team should > spend time improving BIND 9 just for everybody or invest the precious > time into fixing yet another incompatibility between POSIX/SUSv2 and > Windows world, I think the answer would be always: Let’s improve > things for majority of our users. It’s just simple as that. > If this is the way you want to go, why not declare that that BIND is for Unix-like systems and systems that can emulate this environment only and have people who want this get behind it? Why the pretence that it is "highly portable" and that it could be used satisfactorily in a very different environment such as Windows without generating difficulty and conflict? Then I can be on my way as there is nothing further to interest me here. I'm sorry that this probably does not seem helpful to the people who would rather the BIND 9 for Windows situation to continue as it has been but at least it may be clearer to them as to why they are in the situation they are in. Regards, Peter Coghlan > > Ondrej > -- > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > ond...@isc.org > >> On 4. 6. 2021, at 20:37, Peter Coghlan wrote: >> >> What I find ironic is that here: >> >> https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md >> >> the very first line says: >> >> "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable >> implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol." >> >> If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other >> platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort >> and would not require specific funding to adapt it to any particular >> platform. >> >> Can we please have a realistic definition of what BIND is and what >> it's objectives are? >> >> I for one would be more likely to contribute to the development of >> a non-platform-specific, portable BIND than a single-platform-specific >> one. >> >> On the other hand, if it has already been decided that BIND can only >> realistically be implemented in the *u* arena and will rely on >> facilities only available in this arena, then shouldn't this be stated >> clearly instead of also declaring that it is highly portable? >> >> Regards, >> Peter Coghlan. >> >>> >>> Do you understand how ironic is for you to complain about “subscription is >>> not going to happen” while **every** email on the mailing list has this >>> note in the footer: >>> >>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. >>> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >>> >>> -- >>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >>> >>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >>> On 4. 6. 2021, at 19:47, Peter via bind-users wrote: On 04/06/2021 6:05 pm, John Thurston wrote: > >> On 6/4/2021 8:48 AM, Peter via bind-users wrote: >> When people find out2024 is the year bind is no longer su
Re: No more support for windows
REALLY, it is
From: bind-users on behalf of Ondřej Surý
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 11:39 PM
To: Eric Germann
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: No more support for windows
What I’ve heard is that the geoip/maxmindb is the deal breaker,
but on general level, I concur that MS-DNS is a good choice for
Windows Server deployments.
I am a big fan of picking the right tool for the job.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org
> On 4. 6. 2021, at 23:31, Eric Germann via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> Call me naive, but I’m trying to figure out what the corner case is to use
> BIND on Windows.
>
> For an internal network Windows Server already has a name server that
> integrates with AD and everything else needed to run a Windows network.
> Support for DDNS is a lot easier, it has tons of SRV records needed for
> service location, etc. It seems it would be a lot easier to use that for a
> Windows network than shoehorn everything in to BIND.
>
> ---
> Eric Germann
> ekgermann {at} semperen {dot} com || ekgermann {at} gmail {dot} com
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericgermann
> Twitter: @ekgermann
> Telegram || Signal || Phone +1 {dash} 419 {dash } 513 {dash} 0712
>
> GPG Fingerprint: 89ED 36B3 515A 211B 6390 60A9 E30D 9B9B 3EBF F1A1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 4, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
>>
>> This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that
>> you're asking (or making a point) in good faith.
>>
>> So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge.
>>
>> So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc.
>> And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc.
>>
>> I'd consider that highly portable.
>>
>> You're welcome to disagree, but then someone else will complain it's not
>> available in Amiga, Atari and under Dos and complain it isn't "portable"
>> because there's no dos version.
>>
>> So how many platforms do you have to support, to call it portable?
>> (I've always thought of "portable" code, in this context especially, as code
>> that is kept open so it will fairly easily compile on any *nix/posix
>> platform without too much drama. And I think that's a pretty universal
>> understanding for *nix style code.)
>>
>> So, it seems you are tilting at windmills, complaining about Windows only.
>>
>> Yes, the fundamentals of Windows are *VERY* different than any
>> Linux/Unix/Solaris etc based platform. As such, making it work across all
>> those platforms is really quite a lot of work.
>> (Making it work fine, even on the future supported platforms (*nix) isn't
>> trivial - obviously adding Windows to the mix is far, far more!)
>>
>> And, it seems like no-one has stepped up to commit the $$$ needed to keep
>> that support going.
>> Even a cheap dev probably charges $100+ an hour. How many hours/dollars do
>> you think, in aggregate, is committed to keeping Windows support? It's not
>> going to be like buying a $3 app for your phone - since the market for
>> Windows users is far smaller.
>>
>> And, I suspect, if we reach the end of the road for Windows support, and
>> there's a half million users out there that want BIND supported on Windows,
>> and they'll all pledge a buck a year, than I'd expect that Windows support
>> will roll right out.
>>
>> But if instead there's 100 people willing to pledge even $100 a year, well
>> I'd guess that's not likely to pay for it.
>>
>> ISC manages to pay the people who write code and do support through support
>> contracts. Do you have one of those?
>>
>> So the last option is;
>> You, or someone else to simply give away their time for free.
>> You up for that?
>> If you're not, or you don't have that skill set, then complaining bitterly
>> seems a little hypocritical.
>>
>> ISC already releases a huge set of software that you almost certainly use
>> every single day (DHCP server and clients, along with BIND) and they aren't
>> charging you a dime for that use. They're not charging your ISP either, or a
>> ton of other people. So, IMO, they've really done a ton of free work for the
>> community already.
>>
>> But it seems like you think it's not enough.
>>
>> Sigh.
>> What. Can. I. Say.
>> ISC does a lot of really good work.
>> IMO, this kind of a complaint is really mispl
Re: No more support for windows
Really is not as u say
first of all you have to take in mind DMZ and other complex config
As last (as I used it) , I used Linux DIST for Authorative and internet facing
resolver with TLD and as resolver
and two internal windows with BIND on Windows Server and WINS
If you use Active Directory , is used to know is in use MS DNS (so trash).
If you don't use Active Directory or you are inside a DMZ and a complex
enviroment, can be allowed to havi WINS too a Windows Server with BIND AND NOT
ACTIVE DIRECTORY (an ldap redesigned).
Best Regards
Alberto Colosi
ICT Security
From: bind-users on behalf of Eric Germann
via bind-users
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 11:31 PM
To: Greg Sloop
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: No more support for windows
Call me naive, but I’m trying to figure out what the corner case is to use BIND
on Windows.
For an internal network Windows Server already has a name server that
integrates with AD and everything else needed to run a Windows network.
Support for DDNS is a lot easier, it has tons of SRV records needed for service
location, etc. It seems it would be a lot easier to use that for a Windows
network than shoehorn everything in to BIND.
---
Eric Germann
ekgermann {at} semperen {dot} com || ekgermann {at} gmail {dot} com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericgermann
Twitter: @ekgermann
Telegram || Signal || Phone +1 {dash} 419 {dash } 513 {dash} 0712
GPG Fingerprint: 89ED 36B3 515A 211B 6390 60A9 E30D 9B9B 3EBF F1A1
On Jun 4, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Gregory Sloop
mailto:gr...@sloop.net>> wrote:
This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that you're
asking (or making a point) in good faith.
So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge.
So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc.
And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc.
I'd consider that highly portable.
You're welcome to disagree, but then someone else will complain it's not
available in Amiga, Atari and under Dos and complain it isn't "portable"
because there's no dos version.
So how many platforms do you have to support, to call it portable?
(I've always thought of "portable" code, in this context especially, as code
that is kept open so it will fairly easily compile on any *nix/posix platform
without too much drama. And I think that's a pretty universal understanding for
*nix style code.)
So, it seems you are tilting at windmills, complaining about Windows only.
Yes, the fundamentals of Windows are *VERY* different than any
Linux/Unix/Solaris etc based platform. As such, making it work across all those
platforms is really quite a lot of work.
(Making it work fine, even on the future supported platforms (*nix) isn't
trivial - obviously adding Windows to the mix is far, far more!)
And, it seems like no-one has stepped up to commit the $$$ needed to keep that
support going.
Even a cheap dev probably charges $100+ an hour. How many hours/dollars do you
think, in aggregate, is committed to keeping Windows support? It's not going to
be like buying a $3 app for your phone - since the market for Windows users is
far smaller.
And, I suspect, if we reach the end of the road for Windows support, and
there's a half million users out there that want BIND supported on Windows, and
they'll all pledge a buck a year, than I'd expect that Windows support will
roll right out.
But if instead there's 100 people willing to pledge even $100 a year, well I'd
guess that's not likely to pay for it.
ISC manages to pay the people who write code and do support through support
contracts. Do you have one of those?
So the last option is;
You, or someone else to simply give away their time for free.
You up for that?
If you're not, or you don't have that skill set, then complaining bitterly
seems a little hypocritical.
ISC already releases a huge set of software that you almost certainly use every
single day (DHCP server and clients, along with BIND) and they aren't charging
you a dime for that use. They're not charging your ISP either, or a ton of
other people. So, IMO, they've really done a ton of free work for the community
already.
But it seems like you think it's not enough.
Sigh.
What. Can. I. Say.
ISC does a lot of really good work.
IMO, this kind of a complaint is really misplaced.
And to be clear, I won't engage in a bunch of back-and-forth arguing this
position. You're welcome to agree or not.
But *I* think you're obviously wrong, and I want everyone at ISC who does all
that good work, developing great software that they let us use for free that I
really appreciate their work.
-Greg
PC> What I find ironic is that here:
PC>
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-pr
Re: No more support for windows
What I’ve heard is that the geoip/maxmindb is the deal breaker,
but on general level, I concur that MS-DNS is a good choice for
Windows Server deployments.
I am a big fan of picking the right tool for the job.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org
> On 4. 6. 2021, at 23:31, Eric Germann via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> Call me naive, but I’m trying to figure out what the corner case is to use
> BIND on Windows.
>
> For an internal network Windows Server already has a name server that
> integrates with AD and everything else needed to run a Windows network.
> Support for DDNS is a lot easier, it has tons of SRV records needed for
> service location, etc. It seems it would be a lot easier to use that for a
> Windows network than shoehorn everything in to BIND.
>
> ---
> Eric Germann
> ekgermann {at} semperen {dot} com || ekgermann {at} gmail {dot} com
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericgermann
> Twitter: @ekgermann
> Telegram || Signal || Phone +1 {dash} 419 {dash } 513 {dash} 0712
>
> GPG Fingerprint: 89ED 36B3 515A 211B 6390 60A9 E30D 9B9B 3EBF F1A1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 4, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
>>
>> This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that
>> you're asking (or making a point) in good faith.
>>
>> So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge.
>>
>> So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc.
>> And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc.
>>
>> I'd consider that highly portable.
>>
>> You're welcome to disagree, but then someone else will complain it's not
>> available in Amiga, Atari and under Dos and complain it isn't "portable"
>> because there's no dos version.
>>
>> So how many platforms do you have to support, to call it portable?
>> (I've always thought of "portable" code, in this context especially, as code
>> that is kept open so it will fairly easily compile on any *nix/posix
>> platform without too much drama. And I think that's a pretty universal
>> understanding for *nix style code.)
>>
>> So, it seems you are tilting at windmills, complaining about Windows only.
>>
>> Yes, the fundamentals of Windows are *VERY* different than any
>> Linux/Unix/Solaris etc based platform. As such, making it work across all
>> those platforms is really quite a lot of work.
>> (Making it work fine, even on the future supported platforms (*nix) isn't
>> trivial - obviously adding Windows to the mix is far, far more!)
>>
>> And, it seems like no-one has stepped up to commit the $$$ needed to keep
>> that support going.
>> Even a cheap dev probably charges $100+ an hour. How many hours/dollars do
>> you think, in aggregate, is committed to keeping Windows support? It's not
>> going to be like buying a $3 app for your phone - since the market for
>> Windows users is far smaller.
>>
>> And, I suspect, if we reach the end of the road for Windows support, and
>> there's a half million users out there that want BIND supported on Windows,
>> and they'll all pledge a buck a year, than I'd expect that Windows support
>> will roll right out.
>>
>> But if instead there's 100 people willing to pledge even $100 a year, well
>> I'd guess that's not likely to pay for it.
>>
>> ISC manages to pay the people who write code and do support through support
>> contracts. Do you have one of those?
>>
>> So the last option is;
>> You, or someone else to simply give away their time for free.
>> You up for that?
>> If you're not, or you don't have that skill set, then complaining bitterly
>> seems a little hypocritical.
>>
>> ISC already releases a huge set of software that you almost certainly use
>> every single day (DHCP server and clients, along with BIND) and they aren't
>> charging you a dime for that use. They're not charging your ISP either, or a
>> ton of other people. So, IMO, they've really done a ton of free work for the
>> community already.
>>
>> But it seems like you think it's not enough.
>>
>> Sigh.
>> What. Can. I. Say.
>> ISC does a lot of really good work.
>> IMO, this kind of a complaint is really misplaced.
>>
>> And to be clear, I won't engage in a bunch of back-and-forth arguing this
>> position. You're welcome to agree or not.
>> But *I* think you're obviously wrong, and I want everyone at ISC who does
>> all that good work, developing great software that they let us use for free
>> that I really appreciate their work.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> PC> What I find ironic is that here:
>>
>> PC> https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md
>>
>> PC> the very first line says:
>>
>> PC> "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable
>> PC> implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol."
>>
>> PC> If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other
>> PC> platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort
>> PC> and would not req
Re: No more support for windows
Call me naive, but I’m trying to figure out what the corner case is to use BIND
on Windows.
For an internal network Windows Server already has a name server that
integrates with AD and everything else needed to run a Windows network.
Support for DDNS is a lot easier, it has tons of SRV records needed for service
location, etc. It seems it would be a lot easier to use that for a Windows
network than shoehorn everything in to BIND.
---
Eric Germann
ekgermann {at} semperen {dot} com || ekgermann {at} gmail {dot} com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericgermann
Twitter: @ekgermann
Telegram || Signal || Phone +1 {dash} 419 {dash } 513 {dash} 0712
GPG Fingerprint: 89ED 36B3 515A 211B 6390 60A9 E30D 9B9B 3EBF F1A1
> On Jun 4, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Gregory Sloop wrote:
>
> This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that
> you're asking (or making a point) in good faith.
>
> So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge.
>
> So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc.
> And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc.
>
> I'd consider that highly portable.
>
> You're welcome to disagree, but then someone else will complain it's not
> available in Amiga, Atari and under Dos and complain it isn't "portable"
> because there's no dos version.
>
> So how many platforms do you have to support, to call it portable?
> (I've always thought of "portable" code, in this context especially, as code
> that is kept open so it will fairly easily compile on any *nix/posix platform
> without too much drama. And I think that's a pretty universal understanding
> for *nix style code.)
>
> So, it seems you are tilting at windmills, complaining about Windows only.
>
> Yes, the fundamentals of Windows are *VERY* different than any
> Linux/Unix/Solaris etc based platform. As such, making it work across all
> those platforms is really quite a lot of work.
> (Making it work fine, even on the future supported platforms (*nix) isn't
> trivial - obviously adding Windows to the mix is far, far more!)
>
> And, it seems like no-one has stepped up to commit the $$$ needed to keep
> that support going.
> Even a cheap dev probably charges $100+ an hour. How many hours/dollars do
> you think, in aggregate, is committed to keeping Windows support? It's not
> going to be like buying a $3 app for your phone - since the market for
> Windows users is far smaller.
>
> And, I suspect, if we reach the end of the road for Windows support, and
> there's a half million users out there that want BIND supported on Windows,
> and they'll all pledge a buck a year, than I'd expect that Windows support
> will roll right out.
>
> But if instead there's 100 people willing to pledge even $100 a year, well
> I'd guess that's not likely to pay for it.
>
> ISC manages to pay the people who write code and do support through support
> contracts. Do you have one of those?
>
> So the last option is;
> You, or someone else to simply give away their time for free.
> You up for that?
> If you're not, or you don't have that skill set, then complaining bitterly
> seems a little hypocritical.
>
> ISC already releases a huge set of software that you almost certainly use
> every single day (DHCP server and clients, along with BIND) and they aren't
> charging you a dime for that use. They're not charging your ISP either, or a
> ton of other people. So, IMO, they've really done a ton of free work for the
> community already.
>
> But it seems like you think it's not enough.
>
> Sigh.
> What. Can. I. Say.
> ISC does a lot of really good work.
> IMO, this kind of a complaint is really misplaced.
>
> And to be clear, I won't engage in a bunch of back-and-forth arguing this
> position. You're welcome to agree or not.
> But *I* think you're obviously wrong, and I want everyone at ISC who does all
> that good work, developing great software that they let us use for free that
> I really appreciate their work.
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
> PC> What I find ironic is that here:
>
> PC> https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md
>
>
> PC> the very first line says:
>
> PC> "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable
> PC> implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol."
>
> PC> If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other
> PC> platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort
> PC> and would not require specific funding to adapt it to any particular
> PC> platform.
>
> PC> Can we please have a realistic definition of what BIND is and what
> PC> it's objectives are?
>
> PC> I for one would be more likely to contribute to the development of
> PC> a non-platform-specific, portable BIND than a single-platform-specific
> PC> one.
>
> PC> On the ot
Re: No more support for windows
This feels a lot like responding to trolls, but I'll instead assume that you're asking (or making a point) in good faith. So, we'll stipulate that - you're actually interested in truth and knowledge. So, it's easily compiled on Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, Linux, SunOS, RaspPi, etc. And it compiles on a huge range of hardware, CPU's etc. I'd consider that highly portable. You're welcome to disagree, but then someone else will complain it's not available in Amiga, Atari and under Dos and complain it isn't "portable" because there's no dos version. So how many platforms do you have to support, to call it portable? (I've always thought of "portable" code, in this context especially, as code that is kept open so it will fairly easily compile on any *nix/posix platform without too much drama. And I think that's a pretty universal understanding for *nix style code.) So, it seems you are tilting at windmills, complaining about Windows only. Yes, the fundamentals of Windows are *VERY* different than any Linux/Unix/Solaris etc based platform. As such, making it work across all those platforms is really quite a lot of work. (Making it work fine, even on the future supported platforms (*nix) isn't trivial - obviously adding Windows to the mix is far, far more!) And, it seems like no-one has stepped up to commit the $$$ needed to keep that support going. Even a cheap dev probably charges $100+ an hour. How many hours/dollars do you think, in aggregate, is committed to keeping Windows support? It's not going to be like buying a $3 app for your phone - since the market for Windows users is far smaller. And, I suspect, if we reach the end of the road for Windows support, and there's a half million users out there that want BIND supported on Windows, and they'll all pledge a buck a year, than I'd expect that Windows support will roll right out. But if instead there's 100 people willing to pledge even $100 a year, well I'd guess that's not likely to pay for it. ISC manages to pay the people who write code and do support through support contracts. Do you have one of those? So the last option is; You, or someone else to simply give away their time for free. You up for that? If you're not, or you don't have that skill set, then complaining bitterly seems a little hypocritical. ISC already releases a huge set of software that you almost certainly use every single day (DHCP server and clients, along with BIND) and they aren't charging you a dime for that use. They're not charging your ISP either, or a ton of other people. So, IMO, they've really done a ton of free work for the community already. But it seems like you think it's not enough. Sigh. What. Can. I. Say. ISC does a lot of really good work. IMO, this kind of a complaint is really misplaced. And to be clear, I won't engage in a bunch of back-and-forth arguing this position. You're welcome to agree or not. But *I* think you're obviously wrong, and I want everyone at ISC who does all that good work, developing great software that they let us use for free that I really appreciate their work. -Greg PC> What I find ironic is that here: PC> https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md PC> the very first line says: PC> "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable PC> implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol." PC> If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other PC> platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort PC> and would not require specific funding to adapt it to any particular PC> platform. PC> Can we please have a realistic definition of what BIND is and what PC> it's objectives are? PC> I for one would be more likely to contribute to the development of PC> a non-platform-specific, portable BIND than a single-platform-specific PC> one. PC> On the other hand, if it has already been decided that BIND can only PC> realistically be implemented in the *u* arena and will rely on PC> facilities only available in this arena, then shouldn't this be stated PC> clearly instead of also declaring that it is highly portable? PC> Regards, PC> Peter Coghlan. >> Do you understand how ironic is for you to complain about “subscription is >> not going to happen” while **every** email on the mailing list has this >> note in the footer: >> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. >> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >> -- >> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel >> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >>> On 4. 6. 2021, at 19:47, Peter via bind-users >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/06/2021 6:05 pm, John Thurston wrote: > On 6/4/2021 8:48 AM, Peter via bind-users wrote: > When people find out2024 is the year bind is no longer supported for > windows people aregoing to be upset
Re: No more support for windows
Peter, do you seriously think that this word play is going to help the BIND 9 support for Windows? So, I am asking you, what’s your serious proposal what should we do? I’ve had asked if people are willing to invest time, effort or money into keeping the Windows support alive. I would rather accept an external contributor with a commitment rather than just a fat cheque, because Windows support isn’t really something we are putting our heart in. The ISC is working on improving BIND 9 day and night (in fact, it’s almost 11pm here), and we are spread thin, and we have to prioritise. And if I had to answer the question whether I and my team should spend time improving BIND 9 just for everybody or invest the precious time into fixing yet another incompatibility between POSIX/SUSv2 and Windows world, I think the answer would be always: Let’s improve things for majority of our users. It’s just simple as that. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ond...@isc.org > On 4. 6. 2021, at 20:37, Peter Coghlan wrote: > > What I find ironic is that here: > > https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md > > the very first line says: > > "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable > implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol." > > If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other > platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort > and would not require specific funding to adapt it to any particular > platform. > > Can we please have a realistic definition of what BIND is and what > it's objectives are? > > I for one would be more likely to contribute to the development of > a non-platform-specific, portable BIND than a single-platform-specific > one. > > On the other hand, if it has already been decided that BIND can only > realistically be implemented in the *u* arena and will rely on > facilities only available in this arena, then shouldn't this be stated > clearly instead of also declaring that it is highly portable? > > Regards, > Peter Coghlan. > >> >> Do you understand how ironic is for you to complain about “subscription is >> not going to happen” while **every** email on the mailing list has this >> note in the footer: >> >> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. >> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >> >> -- >> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> >> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel >> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>> On 4. 6. 2021, at 19:47, Peter via bind-users >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 04/06/2021 6:05 pm, John Thurston wrote: > On 6/4/2021 8:48 AM, Peter via bind-users wrote: > When people find out2024 is the year bind is no longer supported for > windows people aregoing to be upset this all seems to be done quietly > nothing posted on the the isc.org site about this just how many people > depend on bind for windows will be shocking. And griping about the decision on the mailing list is annoying. If you want to alter the decision, bring something new to the discussion. Funding to pay for the windows development team? Logistical support for the project? Anything constructive will be better received than repeating "I don't like your decision". >>> Yes John Thurston I said about a subscription here which I guess will not >>> happen if they made up thier mind its likly no going to happen. >>> >>> Deprecating BIND 9.18+ on Windows (or making it community improved and >>> supported (isc.org) >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to >>> unsubscribe from this list >>> >>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. >>> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >>> >>> >>> bind-users mailing list >>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users > ___ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
What I find ironic is that here: https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/blob/main/README.md the very first line says: "BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is a complete, highly portable implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol." If this were truly the case, BIND would work on Windows (or any other platform that doesn't have a "u" in it's name) with minimal effort and would not require specific funding to adapt it to any particular platform. Can we please have a realistic definition of what BIND is and what it's objectives are? I for one would be more likely to contribute to the development of a non-platform-specific, portable BIND than a single-platform-specific one. On the other hand, if it has already been decided that BIND can only realistically be implemented in the *u* arena and will rely on facilities only available in this arena, then shouldn't this be stated clearly instead of also declaring that it is highly portable? Regards, Peter Coghlan. > > Do you understand how ironic is for you to complain about “subscription is > not going to happen” while **every** email on the mailing list has this > note in the footer: > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > -- > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel > obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > >> On 4. 6. 2021, at 19:47, Peter via bind-users >> wrote: >> >> >> On 04/06/2021 6:05 pm, John Thurston wrote: >>> On 6/4/2021 8:48 AM, Peter via bind-users wrote: When people find out2024 is the year bind is no longer supported for windows people aregoing to be upset this all seems to be done quietly nothing posted on the the isc.org site about this just how many people depend on bind for windows will be shocking. >>> >>> And griping about the decision on the mailing list is annoying. >>> >>> If you want to alter the decision, bring something new to the discussion. >>> Funding to pay for the windows development team? Logistical support for the >>> project? >>> >>> Anything constructive will be better received than repeating "I don't like >>> your decision". >>> >> Yes John Thurston I said about a subscription here which I guess will not >> happen if they made up thier mind its likly no going to happen. >> >> Deprecating BIND 9.18+ on Windows (or making it community improved and >> supported (isc.org) >> >> >> >> ___ >> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to >> unsubscribe from this list >> >> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. >> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >> >> >> bind-users mailing list >> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
Well its clearly not working so it needs to change just like DDNS is free but you can paid for a subscription thats easy to do or SSL is free for 90days but you have the option to pay easily for a year but that might not work for bind for windows so it needs to be a subscription to run it at least for windows so it can be supported. This would mean some type of activation that can't work on another system how thats done I don't know like what if the system its running on goes down and you have to put bind on another system how do you deal with that and so onmaybe if you do a year subscription of some amount you get 12 one time keys in a file that bind uses each month to valid your use and removes a key this list can be updated to add more keys as you extend the subscription so in the event the system dies you have some keys for a new system. But I don't really see this happening would like to be proven wrong... ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: No more support for windows
Do you understand how ironic is for you to complain about “subscription is not going to happen” while **every** email on the mailing list has this note in the footer: ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. -- Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > On 4. 6. 2021, at 19:47, Peter via bind-users > wrote: > > > On 04/06/2021 6:05 pm, John Thurston wrote: >> >>> On 6/4/2021 8:48 AM, Peter via bind-users wrote: >>> When people find out2024 is the year bind is no longer supported for >>> windows people aregoing to be upset this all seems to be done quietly >>> nothing posted on the the isc.org site about this just how many people >>> depend on bind for windows will be shocking. >> >> And griping about the decision on the mailing list is annoying. >> >> If you want to alter the decision, bring something new to the discussion. >> Funding to pay for the windows development team? Logistical support for the >> project? >> >> Anything constructive will be better received than repeating "I don't like >> your decision". >> > Yes John Thurston I said about a subscription here which I guess will not > happen if they made up thier mind its likly no going to happen. > > Deprecating BIND 9.18+ on Windows (or making it community improved and > supported (isc.org) > > > > ___ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
