On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 18:42:37 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> Don't several system comopnents, such as dhcp clients, happily
> rewrite resolve.conf, wiping out anything the sysadmin may have set
> up.
Well, yes they do - and even if we don't want to solve that by KISSing
away e.g. network-manager and
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> Don't several system components, such as dhcp clients, happily rewrite
> resolve.conf, wiping out anything the sysadmin may have set up.
This well-known problem also has a somewhat known solution, a piece of
software called resolvconf . (Note to
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:35:22 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 03/01/2017 at 18:20, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:06:53 +0100
> > Jaromil wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017, Jaromil wrote:
> >>
> >>> what a pity Debian has switched to Google's DNS by default.
> >> for the
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 06:42:37PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
>
> Don't several system comopnents, such as dhcp clients, happily rewrite
> resolve.conf, wiping out anything the sysadmin may have set up.
>
Not if you have "chattr +a /etc/resolv.conf", as I normally do. I
think the proble
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 08:55:40PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with 8.8.8.8? It's Google's public DNS, and for me, it
> > always works.
>
> That's fine - no-one is saying that you shouldn't use them if **you** want to.
>
> What people object to is a hidden
Consulting https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658, I
am able to hazard a guess at the answer to this question:
> Any idea which... talented person wrote that changeset for the system
> resolver? And how I avoid sharing cities, time zones, preferably
> continents, etc. with him/h
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> The current version of the system resolver has a hard coded fall-back
> - if you don't specify any resolvers then it will automatically use
> Google's (silently) !
I don't normally me-too content-free comments, but:
Wow. Just wow. {boggle}
I r
Rick Moen wrote:
> You probably have some data on this matter that I lack.
I read the Debian bug report someone linked to some messages back in this
thread.
> Is this some
> systemd brain-damage you're referring to? Some file that gets consulted
> instead of /etc/resolv.conf ?
The current ve
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> OK, I stand corrected. But it's still having to manually "fix"
> something that wasn't (as people point out) broken for 30 years and
> now suddenly (and without warning) is now broken.
As with Arnt and me, we stand in strenuous agreement.
> But yo
Rick Moen wrote:
>> Even worse is when there isn't a
>> mechanism for turning this off.
>
> Well, not quite. if you know *ix at all[0]:
>
> # sed -i 's/^nameserver/#nameserver/' /etc/resolv.conf
>
>
> To disable system DNS (but not /etc/hosts) entirely:
>
> # cp /etc/nsswitch.conf /etc/nssw
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Rick Moen wrote:
> I would suggest, if the installing sysadmin has opted to not
> configure any DNS nameservice at all, i.e., was prompted for
> nameserver IP and provided none, and also had did not opt to have
> one given to the host with a DHCP lease, then the installing
> s
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 12:42:48PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> I would suggest, if the installing sysadmin has opted to not configure
> any DNS nameservice at all, i.e., was prompted for nameserver IP and
> provided none, and also had did not opt to have one given to the host
> with a DHCP lease, the
Alessandro Selli writes:
This still doesn't explain why they decided to force-feed Google's DNS
server on the user without prompting the poor fellow any possible choice.
"Your network sucks. Do you want to [ ] use google or [ ] just give up?"
BTW, how many Debian installations are perform
Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen (a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no):
> I wrote:
> >This year I've seen...
>
> No I haven't ;) Happy new year, everyone!
Og godt nytt år! ;->
(Watching season one of Okkupert lately, sometimes even turning off the
subtitles.)
___
Dng
Simon Hobson writes:
For the rest of us, if we have no DNS servers in resolv.conf
then we expect the system to respect that and not do DNS
resolution. That is the **ONLY** correct behaviour.
What is absolutely, 100%, not acceptable behaviour is what's
been done - to silently do something that
On 03/01/2017 at 22:38, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Alessandro Selli writes:
>> Why are Debian
>> folks so eager at increasing Google's traffic and "free" "services"?
>
> Just a guess: Because so many of the resolvers at random hotels suck,
> and that suckage causes support load.
>
> This year I've s
Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen (a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no):
> Alessandro Selli writes:
> >Why are Debian
> >folks so eager at increasing Google's traffic and "free" "services"?
>
> Just a guess: Because so many of the resolvers at random hotels
> suck, and that suckage causes support load.
Many ISP rec
Rick Moen writes:
You might not have noticed that you were strenuously agreeing with me.
I mixed up the participants in the thread while reading through the posts.
Sorry.
Arnt
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/c
Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen (a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no):
> Rick Moen writes:
> >One recursive namserver per LAN is obviously better than several on
> >grounds of multiple considerations that I won't belabour here.
>
> Is it, really? Significantly?
Really but absolutely _not_ significantly. As I als
I wrote:
This year I've seen...
No I haven't ;) Happy new year, everyone!
Arnt
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Alessandro Selli writes:
Why are Debian
folks so eager at increasing Google's traffic and "free" "services"?
Just a guess: Because so many of the resolvers at random hotels suck, and
that suckage causes support load.
This year I've seen almost infinitely slow resolvers, resolvers that filter
Steve Litt writes:
What's wrong with 8.8.8.8? It's Google's public DNS, and for me, it
always works.
Didn't work for me at the captive portal in the hotel I was in two weeks
ago.
There are two kinds of hotel networks that block 8.8.8.8: Hotels in China,
and ones that block all DNS except th
Rick Moen writes:
One recursive namserver per LAN is obviously better than several on
grounds of multiple considerations that I won't belabour here.
Is it, really? Significantly?
It eases the load on the root and big-zone TLDs. I've heard that most of
their load is caused by other factors, th
Am concurring, but quibbling on a minor detail, anyway.
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> What is absolutely, 100%, not acceptable behaviour is what's been done
> - to silently do something that no sane admin would expect, and many
> people have objections to doing. Even worse is w
On 03/01/2017 at 21:47, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
>
>> What's wrong with 8.8.8.8?
> Nothing at all if you want it. When asked for namservice IPs, just enter
> '8.8.8.8' and '8.8.4.4'. Done.
>
> Jaromir's question amounted to 'If the installing sysadmin has
Steve Litt wrote:
> What's wrong with 8.8.8.8? It's Google's public DNS, and for me, it
> always works.
That's fine - no-one is saying that you shouldn't use them if **you** want to.
What people object to is a hidden change, where something that **should** work
one way (DNS lookups fail if no
Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> Rick Moen wrote:
>
>> My modest suggestion is that it's in Linux users' interest to not
>> outsource recursive service to anyone at all. Having the necessary
>> recursive nameservice be on one of one's own local machines improves
>> network perfo
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
> What's wrong with 8.8.8.8?
Nothing at all if you want it. When asked for namservice IPs, just enter
'8.8.8.8' and '8.8.4.4'. Done.
Jaromir's question amounted to 'If the installing sysadmin has opted
neither for a recursive namserver IP nor DHC
Quoting Jaromil (jaro...@dyne.org):
> for the record and the sake of historical correctness:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658
I install Debian so rarely (and always supply my own recursive
nameserver IP when I do) that I never noticed this policy decision. The
only good
On 03/01/2017 at 18:20, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:06:53 +0100
> Jaromil wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017, Jaromil wrote:
>>
>>> what a pity Debian has switched to Google's DNS by default.
>> for the record and the sake of historical correctness:
>>
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 12:20:09PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> What's wrong with 8.8.8.8? It's Google's public DNS, and for me, it
> always works. There are two kinds of people: Those who like Google, and
> those who hate it. The first group can take pride in using Google's
> public DNS,
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:06:53 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017, Jaromil wrote:
>
> > what a pity Debian has switched to Google's DNS by default.
>
> for the record and the sake of historical correctness:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658
>
> there is howev
On Mon, 02 Jan 2017, Jaromil wrote:
> what a pity Debian has switched to Google's DNS by default.
for the record and the sake of historical correctness:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761658
there is however an issue we need to look at for Devuan: it seems the
default dns res
33 matches
Mail list logo
