Why is named started, but not being used?

[Tom Lane]

Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> writes:
> Once upon a time, Tom Lane <tgl at redhat.com> said:
>> The excuse I've heard so far for NM's extensive brain damage is that
>> it's only designed to support typical laptop usage, but how would that
>> scenario include forcibly starting a doubtless-misconfigured local
>> named?

> IIRC, the idea is to use named as a local caching DNS server.  This is
> better than fiddling with resolv.conf (as apps tend to only look at that
> once) or nscd (which doesn't know TTLs).

Hmmm ... so the corollary to that argument is that NM will force named
to be started at boot, and not allow it to be shut down, regardless of
the local sysadmin's wishes.  That doesn't sound like a recipe for
winning friends either --- *especially* not if NM thinks it should have
any say over named's configuration.

This looks like a train wreck in progress to me.

			regards, tom lane