Fwd: Re: Server issues

[Ante Karamatić]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:20 -0700
Neal McBurnett <neal at bcn.boulder.co.us> 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. :)