On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700 Neal McBurnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't really have a well informed opinion on the topic of zeroconf > and/or LLMNR, despite having paid some attention to it. It's very simple. Both technologies claim one undefined domain. And this discussion went in wrong direction. It's not about LLMNR vs Zeroconf. I'm arguing that *both* of them brake lots of existing networks. .local is undefined domain and thus it is used all around the world on real DNS (like Bind) for small-medium sized local networks. I'm sure there are people who said 'This Ubanti thing can't resolve computers on my network, it's crap!'. True, naming local networks as .local, which is undefined, is not good practice, but ignoring the fact that people did this before LLMNR/Zeroconf is much bigger mistake. This isn't Ubuntu's problem and there is nothing that Ubuntu can do, except (stop) supporting one of the 'wannabe' standards. Someone mentioned SuSE. Yes, they are 'broken' for years, do we want that too? I can't imagine how it would look like to have Mac, SuSE, Ubuntu and Window2k3 in a domain that ends with .local. :) -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
