See [this page] for a discussion of trailing dots in domain names, what they mean, and why they are important.
- 188.8.131.52 01:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article, plain simply, does not follow the Wikipedia POV guidelines. The article is worded in such a way that only someone who is a strong advocate of DJB's software would word the article. I have tried to create a more neutral wording, but had my changes reverted. Let us look at the changes one by one that I have done.
I've added a link to the NPOV template. Until these issues are looked at by a number of different Wikipedia editors, this article can't have NPOV. I'm the author of MaraDNS, a competing DNS server. Whoever is reverting my changes is a strong DJB advocate.
Here is the first sentence in the copyright status section:
- As a consequence, some Linux distributions (such as Debian) will not install, and possibly not even include, djbdns because by their rules they classify such software as "non-free"2
I changed this to:
- As a consequence, most Linux distributions will not include djbdns because the software is not licensed under an Open-source license.
The IP that reverted my change said this in the edit summary: "Restored original wording that was more neutral, because it attributed the view to the people who hold it, and more accurate, because it used the actual classfication."
Let us look at the above sentence one by one:
- "Most" Linux distributions, not "Some" Linux distributions. I can not name one Linux distribution with DjbDNS; they all include BIND 9. RedHat has never included djbdns. Slackware has never included djbdns. Mandrake has never included djbdns. "Some" implies that a large number of Linux distributions include djbdns, when the fact of the matter is that they do not.
- "djbdns is not licensed under an Open-source license." First of all, there is a license for Djbdns. Now, compare this license to clause three of the Open Source Definition. It is factual and NPOV to state that DjbDNS is not licensed under an Open-source license.
I have reworded the sentence to have as little POV as possible:
- djbdns is Licence-Free Software; the software is not licensed under a license that meets the Open Source Definition. This stops DjbDNS from being included with some Linux distributions, such as Debian. This is also probably why most other Linux distributions do not include djbdns.
As it turns out, few Linux distributions have a page saying "if it's not compatible with an open source license, we won't include it" page, but, as a practical matter, distributions will not include software that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition unless there is no non-OS versaion available (this is why RedHat used to include Doom, Netscape, and XV; this is why most distributions still include mp3 players). See also     etc.
Lets look at the rest of the changes:
- Nonetheless, djbdns users point out that it is "free enough" for anyone to use; the source code is publicly available and open for inspection and modification by users; and the licensing issues haven't stopped a large number of feature-enhancing augmentations from being published.
I tried to make this a little kinder to djbdns:
- djbdns, however, is free for anyone to use; the source code is publicly available, can be downloaded by anyone free of charge, and is open for inspection and modification by users. The licensing issues haven't stopped a large number of feature-enhancing augmentations from being published.
I don't understand why this was reverted. The fact that anyone can download, use, and modify djbdns isn't something djbdns users need to point out; anyone can look at the license and see this for themselves.
Finally, the IP removed the following sentence which clarifies the license:
- The only limitation is that one can not legally distribute a modified version of djbdns; modifications have to be distributed as diff patches.
This sentence does nothing more than clarify that you can not distribute a modified djbdns. This is a fact and I don't see how this sentence has POV.
The IP also removed a link to a very opinionated rant against DJB's software. His edit summary for removing the link was "Removed irrelevant Moen link that has nothing to do with djbdns". The link points to a page that does discuss djbdns. I added the link to minimize POV; all of the other links are DJB's own links or links of pages belonging to DJB advocates.
Obviously, as the author of MaraDNS, another DNS server, it is impossible for me to have a neutral POV. This is why I will add this page to WP:RFC to see if other editors can help this article achieve NPOV.
Samboy 18:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- (RFC response: my comments are hopefully neutral- I had never even heard of djbns 10 minutes ago)
- weakly agree that "most" is better than "some" although I don't see it as being a hugely important point. Maybe the word "many" would be a suitable compromise.
- strongly agree that your first rewrite of the source code sentence is both clearer, NPOV and more encylopedic.
- strongly agree that the sentence should stay on diff patces. If the article mentions the diff patches then their limitations must also be mentioned to provide balance.
- weak disagree on the link. Although it's good to get balance, can't you find a better one than a messy page entitled "Rick's Rants" - why is this author of this article notable to be linked to from Wikipedia? Majts 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I made a change to the opening paragraph as "fed up with" is hardly encycopedic. I also shortened the sentence re the $500 reward as it was saying the same thing twice. However I feel that this sentence shouldn't be in this paragraph as it hardly defines the product. Majts 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I very much appreciate it, and will make your proposed changes. Samboy 19:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed "most" to "many", and have changed the link to one more neutral. Samboy 19:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Case of djbdns when used at start of a sentence
Seeing djbdns misspelled as "Djbdns" seems as unpleasantly, itchingly wrong to me (and, I presume, many others with Unix or programming backgrounds) as seeing an apparently-incorrectly-capitalized sentence might feel to Nohat. (Of course this goes for qmail as well.) I think that for an encyclopedia article about a technical subject, technical correctness must trump ease of reading.
Here's my argument: djbdns is not an English word at all -- it's a (case-sensitive) Unix filename, and is spelled "djbdns" no matter what human language the surrounding text happens to be written in. This isn't a trendy marketing issue but is a matter of correctness: since if you try to use "Djbdns" in its place in a script or at a command prompt you'll get an error, technical writing must be very clear whenever such non-obvious significant differences exist. (Fortunately, it's now very rare to see case sensitivity in any interface exposed to ordinary users.)
It's true the resemblance of these symbols to English letters isn't accidental. But neither is the resemblance of many mathematical symbols to Greek or Latin letters, yet one wouldn't try to change σ(N) into something like Σ(N) (in the unlikely event it occurred at the start of a sentence).
I propose rewording instead of mangling the symbol. For the first sentence of this article we could use something like "The program djbdns is [blah blah blah]," although my personal preference is to keep djbdns at the front of the introductory sentence.
This seems like the kind of thing that must have been discussed at length already -- if so, please let me know, as all I can find so far is a very brief discussion here. --Saucepan 03:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is written in English. In English, sentences begin with capital letters. If a sentence does not begin with a capital letter, it is incorrect English. If "djbdns" cannot be written with an initial capital letter, then it should not begin a sentence in English. If "djbdns" is not English, then it should be translated to English, because the English Wikipedia is written in English, not in whatever non-English construct "djbdns" is. It seems to me that the Unix filename for this command is indeed "djbdns", but the name of the program is "Djbdns", capitalized because it is a proper name, as proper names are capitalized in English. When writing about this program in English, we refer to the program by its name, not by its Unix filename. I don't see any reason why we should assume that people are incapable of understanding that a program's name could possibly be different from the command used to execute the program. Certainly Windows users have no trouble with this. Perhaps Unix users aren't quite as clever at catching on to things like that? Nohat 03:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks and sarcasm aside, it appears you would be satisfied with the compromise of avoiding "djbdns" at the start of a sentence, thus (hopefully) allowing both types of pedants to coexist peacefully. I've gone ahead and made this change even though the resulting wording seems clumsier in places. --Saucepan 18:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Notha: Personal attacks, weak attempts at sarcasm and illogical comparisons serve no purpose and only take away any reason you might have had. This article is about a given thing, whose name is djbdns. It is not Djbdns, it is not dJbdns, it is not iPod. Would you also support that a sentence beginning with iPod have it written as IPod? Or Ipod? Or would you propose we "translate" iPod to something else? And exactly how do you translate a product name? This makes no sense. The name of the program is djbdns. It is clearly stated in its official site, and in fact on the title of this very article. Saying "Djbdns is blah" is wrong. Saying "djbdns is blah" is correct. Saying "The program djbdns is blah" is also correct, but it is an unnecessarily redundant sentence. Now, whether you are a Windows user is your own problem and - one would expect - should not impair your ability to understand that capitalization matters in a product's name. eBay is not the same as EBay or Ebay, iPod is not the same as Ipod. -- 184.108.40.206 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit to the article
Since, as the author of MaraDNS, I have a conflict of interest, I have notifying other editors that I have just made a minor neutral edit correcting a factual error. The article stated that there exists three forks of DJBdns; I know of at least five, so I changed the wording to “a number of”. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Djbdns&diff=622745383&oldid=614310840
My personal opinion is that N-DJBDNS is the best fork out there; yeah, it’s GPL, but it’s the only fork I know of that is current with all known security issues in DJBdns (which, of course, is very secure, with only five issues coming up in its 15 year of existence). Samboy (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)