Re: These are not DNS-Servers
Factually you are correct(ish) However, Unix based systems (at least) will have in /etc/resolv.conf something like:
So the newbie: Windows using the term "DNS server" in their dialogues is fair enough - they are servers that spit out DNS information. As it turns out, a large proportion of the world refers to non auth resolvers as "DNS servers" or "nameservers".
I manage many Windows DNS, BIND, PowerDNS, Unbound, int al and feel I have a pretty good handle on how DNS works. Criticising people for their use of "DNS server" for a "resolver" is pretty low on my list of thing to get wound up about. Incidentally, many of those mere "resolvers" may of course be authoritative for some domains. In which case how do you refer to them?
Perhaps you might also get upset at an Apache instance being used as a reverse proxy being called a "web server".
Now if you really understood DNS 'n' IP to a level where you can get uptight in public and not expect to be flamed then you would have pointed out that MS's biggest mistake was to make it appear that DNS settings are per interface and not per host.
... or to put it another way: how would you like me to refer to a system that does DNS thingies as a resolver, authoritative for some zones and non-authoritative for other zones. I think I'll just call the whole lot of them DNS servers and if I'm not sure what they do but they perform this function then I'll still call them DNS servers. Oh and even if I bother to check the finer details, I'll still call them DNS servers.