Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy
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.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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.''