3 ms·

That is far from the consensus in the thread you quoted. Some choice quotes: > SystemD is following a standard, while people are relying on an implementation.

That is far from the consensus in the thread you quoted. Some choice quotes: > SystemD is following a standard, while people are relying on an implementation. One that has been stable for a long time and has become a de-facto standard. Think of e.g. memcpy on BSD - even though the standard says memcpy between overlapped regions is not defined, the implementation does memmove in that case, because that's what people expect to happen. If you're replacing a system that has historically provided guarantees above and beyond those given by a bespoke standard, you should emulate them, or you'll cause users a lot of pain. > SystemD devs have chosen to inflict pain on their users, hence the users are not happy. And > Using each server in order is the expected behavior. From resolv.conf(5) nameserver Name server IP address Internet address of a name server that the resolver should query [...]. If there are multiple servers, the resolver library queries them in the order listed. [...] (The algorithm used is to try a name server, and if the query times out, try the next, until out of name servers, then repeat trying all the name servers until a maximum number of retries are made.)

JdeBP 9y ago
I said that it was explained there. That you can also find people who get things wrong only reinforces my point about this being a common misunderstanding of the DNS. All of those not-very-choice-at-all quotes were debunked in that discussion, including the bunkum that this is a systemd thing, disproven by the fact that these sorts of assertions had to be debunked years before systemd was even invented.
- benchaney 9y ago
  If by "it was explained there" you mean "there was a discussion there and some people agree with me", then sure "it was explained there". In fact, neither of those quotes were debunked, the only attempt to debunk them is based on the idea that there were two revolvers before systemd-resolved, and only one of them held this behavior. That is a really silly arguments because the main complaint is that systemd-resolved is being used as a drop in replacement that doesn't obey the defacto spec established by its predecessor. The irony here is that there are real arguments for changing the behavior (and real arguments against it), but you are ignoring them to instead insist that any complaints are "debunked" when they clearly aren't.

JdeBP 9y ago

I said that it was explained there. That you can also find people who get things wrong only reinforces my point about this being a common misunderstanding of the DNS. All of those not-very-choice-at-all quotes were debunked in that discussion, including the bunkum that this is a systemd thing, disproven by the fact that these sorts of assertions had to be debunked years before systemd was even invented.

benchaney 9y ago
If by "it was explained there" you mean "there was a discussion there and some people agree with me", then sure "it was explained there". In fact, neither of those quotes were debunked, the only attempt to debunk them is based on the idea that there were two revolvers before systemd-resolved, and only one of them held this behavior. That is a really silly arguments because the main complaint is that systemd-resolved is being used as a drop in replacement that doesn't obey the defacto spec established by its predecessor. The irony here is that there are real arguments for changing the behavior (and real arguments against it), but you are ignoring them to instead insist that any complaints are "debunked" when they clearly aren't.