by tuetuopay | 2025-12-18 11:05:53+00:00
> Sure, as long as the solution isn't to just bolt on another distinct DNS monolith

Why not? And I don't mean this in tongue-in-cheek, but as a genuine interrogation: why not go the macOS/systemd route?

DNS is a complex topic. Much more complex than people admit it is, and that can definitely not be expressed fully with resolv.conf. I do agree that it is too late to get rid of it (and was not my concern actually), but it is too limited to be of actual use outside of the simple "I have a single DNS server with a single search domain". IMHO, a dedicated local daemon with its own bespoke config definitely has value, even if it solely provides a local cache for applications that don't have one already (like most of them outside of browsers). And for more complex cases, simple integration with the network configuration daemon provides actual value in e.g. knowing that a specific server is reachable through a specific interface that has a specific search domain. That is, native routing to the correct servers to avoid the timeout dance as soon as you have split networks.

Also, for the local ad-hoc configuration part. We already have nsswitch which is its own can of worms that pretty much nobody have ever heard about let even touched its configuration. Heck, I've written DNS servers but only looked once at nsswitch. resolved's configuration is integrated in the systemd ecosystem, has an approachable and well documented configuration, and is pretty useful in general.

Anyways, the main gripe I had was not really at the mess that is DNS on Linux, but the general stance in the UNIX-like world against anything that's not a lego of shell scripts because "that's not the unix philosophy". Yeah you can write an init system fully with sh, have their "units" also all be written in sh, but oh lord has stuff like systemd improved the situation for the init + service part. Having a raw string from a network packet land in a shell script is a recipe for disaster, seeing how much quoting in scripts is famously difficult.

> The problem with the new, alternative monoliths is they very quickly run off into the weeds with their crazy features and configuration

Agreed for the crazy features. systemd is a godsend for the modern linux world, but I'm skeptical when I see the likes of systemd-home. Yet the configuration is not where I'd pick at those systems though, because they tend to be much more configurable. They are opiniated, yes, but the configuration is an actual configuration and not a patchwork of shell scripts somewhere in /etc, when they're not direct patches to the foundational shell scripts!

> in ways that create barriers for userland applications

How so? In the specific example of resolved, I'd argue it's even less work for applications, because they don't need to query multiple DNS servers at once (it'll handle it for them), don't need to try resolution with and without search domain, etc.

In the end, I find that resolved's approach at symlinking its stub resolv.conf is the most elegant approach with our current setups.

PS: I talk a lot about resolved because that's the one I know best, not the one I think is the best! It has loads of shortcomings too, yet it's still a net improvement to whatever was in place before.