Re: [cobalt-developers] dns setup

[Sam Moats <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bravo!!
Sam

At 03:11 PM 10/26/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >I think I've said in many posts that the RaQ2 gui is NOT suitable for
> >managing DNS.  I apologize for not mentioning it every time.
>
>Phooey. It works fine. Best I ever used.
>Been using it for years, now, and provide service
>to many outside clients as well.
>Been 100% reliable. Does require reasonable
>working knowledge of DNS/Bind principles.
>IMHO most misunderstood part of Sys Admin work, and seen majority of
>otherwise qualified SysAdmin folks fail miserably at this...
>( Probably because is quite tedious-least fun...)
>
> > A system that promises so
> > much, but delivers headaches, is QUESTIONABLE, at the least? I have
> > spent more time and effort maintaining (correcting) the RaQ's errors
> > than it takes to maintain the (few) troublesome issues with my NT
> > servers.
>
>Disagree completely. Haven't met a CPU and OS yet that doesn't present
>some challenge.
>However, if used for purpose intended out of the box, Cobalt Raq works
>supremely well.
>Have enjoyed greatest success out of all sytems ever used
>( 30 years- aargh...)
>
>Now, if you want to improvise, you need to master the instrument.
>do not often see that represented here.
>( How do you use "Vi"....sheesh!! how often do we see that??!!)
>
>All I see is a demand for a MORE user-friendly device from Cobalt.
>if  "user-friendly" = "Idiot-Proof"
>Then the great Guru Murphy's "idiot" corollary applies:
>" Build something that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it!"
>
>I note that Microsoft and Apple have mission statements to this effect,
>and I suppose we are all aware of how beloved their systems are.
>Just sent out a boot disk for Win95 First release.
>Folks afraid to upgrade!!! Was nightmare and expensive for them to get 
>there !!!
>
>Again, master the technique/technology, and frankly, any box will do !!!!
>Give it a rest!
>
>note: I am not a 'Cobalt Cheerleader"
>         I am "Solution Provider" and only will consult likewise.
>         Cobalt is still most effective solution for a full duty web server
>          that I will recommend, at this time.
>
> >At the moment I'm trying to install W2K
> >Advanced Server.  I'm sure it's worth the money, if I can ever figure it
> >out <wry grin, again>.
>
>Thanks for making my point.
>  It will work, but you need skill and experience - my point regarding
Cobalt.
>BTW, it's not worth the money. Installed it to end up disabling most of 
>it's features.
>
>Did not have to or will ever want to disable ANY of the Cobalt features.
>
>Finally, do y'all understand this is a Red Hat Linux OS platform,
>considered the most effective and Top rated Linux distrubution available
>by every source I've seen???????????
>
>It's just accomodating an HTTPD GUI front end.....
>What's the problem with that?
>
>C'mon guys, sniveling is unbecoming industry professionals.
>Let's leave that perogative to our clients.
>Enjoy. Life is too short....
>
>Jessica McDonald Ph.D.
>http://www.jmoira.com
>mailto:jmoira@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>At 01:31 PM 10/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>Gerald waugh wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO do not use the RaQ GUI to setup your named servers <RYE (or is it a
>> > (SCOTCH) grin>
>>
>>A "wry grin" is shaped something like a "~".  It indicates I'm smiling
>>because I understand something I'd rather not be smiling about.
>>
>> > unless you are willing to always edit the errors that the RaQ GUI
>> > inserts into the BIND records. Speaking from using the RaQ2 GUI, which
>> > will always break your reverse look-up, by conveniently writing a "/"
>> > instead of a "-" into your named.conf file!
>>
>>I think I've said in many posts that the RaQ2 gui is NOT suitable for
>>managing DNS.  I apologize for not mentioning it every time.
>>
>> > Plus will neglect to add
>> > $TTL <value> as the first line of the zone files, which will fill your
>> > log files with errors, when ever named initializes (starts, re-starts),
>> > not to mention the CPU - disk Access time required to write all the
>> > errors to the log file (/var/log/messages). Is The RaQ BroQe?
>>
>>Maybe it is.  I don't recall this being a problem with the RaQ2 when I
>>had it.  Did an upgrade recently update Bind?  Probably, to eliminate a
>>security hole.  Perhaps they forgot to change the program that creates
>>the pri.* files; the old version of Bind didn't require the $TTL line.
>>
>> > Maybe a
>> > little SUN will help! Is it time for a RE-CALL? Is it time for a
>> > CLASS-ACTION-LAW-SUIT? where is Ralph Nader?
>>
>>Our running for president, as a matter of fact.  For the Green party.
>>
>> > A system that promises so
>> > much, but delivers headaches, is QUESTIONABLE, at the least? I have
>> > spent more time and effort maintaining (correcting) the RaQ's errors
>> > than it takes to maintain the (few) troublesome issues with my NT
>> > servers.
>>
>>It would seem then, that you should concentrate on NT servers, just as
>>I've learned to stay away from them because I can never seem to get the
>>things to work <wry grin>.  At the moment I'm trying to install W2K
>>Advanced Server.  I'm sure it's worth the money, if I can ever figure it
>>out <wry grin, again>.
>>
>> > But, do create a secondary (slave in modern day terms) server... Your
>> > Master (primary)  .in-addr.arpa file must have entries for your
>> > nameservers (both Master and Slave), and, your Slave (secondary) must
>> > have entries in it's named.conf file to accept updates from the Master
>> > (primary).
>> >
>> > There is no mystery about getting your nameservers registered in your
>> > ROOT TLD database, although it is never well explained!
>> > (1) get your nameserver records in order,
>> > (2) Go to your DOMAIN registrar (this is important)
>> >      There should be an interface whereby you can administer the name
>> > servers.
>> >      First ADD your nameservers as 3rd and 4th,
>> >      this being an exercise to see if they are accepted.
>> > (3) Then delete the primary (master) and secondary (slave) nameservers
>> > and make yours the
>> >     primary(master) and the secondary (slave)!
>>
>>Aren't you know waying about the same as I've been saying for several
>>days now, that your nameservers must be registered with your registrar?
>>
>>Jeff
>>--
>>Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>nobaloney.net
>>P. O. Box 52672
>>Riverside, CA  92517
>>voice: (909) 787-8589  *  fax: (909) 782-0205
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cobalt-developers mailing list
>>cobalt-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers
>
>_______________________________________________
>cobalt-developers mailing list
>cobalt-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers
>