On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:59:03PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 08:46:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > I guess I just don't think of inetd as terribly heavy. It's easy to > > > turn off, and it's a small program. Makes this seem like a lot of > > > work then, since we have all kinds of programs that *somebody* might > > > have no use for, but we don't bother trying to factor, say, fileutils > > > into a jillion different packages. > > The difference is that fileutils doesn't offer services to other hosts > > on the network. > I should have said it's easy turn inetd off. Oh wait, I did say that. There's no need to get snippy, least of all about something you've already indicated doesn't bother you. It is easy to turn off, but that's not as good as it could be for two reasons: one is that you have to turn it off when the system can be smart enough to not turn it on it the first place if it's not needed, and the second is that if you don't want it turned on, by far the easiest and safest way of ensuring that is to not have it installed in the first place. Maybe you don't care about the difference, but other people do. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgpe6kE2XDe7r.pgp
Description: PGP signature