On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege > > separation, etc.) > > xinetd begone. There is no justification for using anything resembling > inetd on a modern system. > Why? What if I prefer to have something from inetd only when necessary instead of constantly running daemons everywhere? > > - Better OS backup management -> upgrade rollback? > > Selecting one of the many existing viable methods is pointless, as > most people will just have to get rid of it again before using > whatever they prefer. Creating a new one seems equally pointless. We > do not have a shortage of backup tools. If you have specific issues > with the particular tool you use, you know where to send them. > I think he was referring to being able to rollback to an earlier version of an installed package. Something which is currently not supported, AIUI. Maybe even an earlier release of Debian. > > - Separate runlevels: 2 for multi, no net, 3 for multi no X, 4 for X, 4=5 > > No way. Debian has always avoided mindlessly dictating what runlevels > must be used for. There's no reason to destroy this feature now. And > there's no advantage to consuming an entire runlevel just to say > "/etc/init.d/xdm stop" or "/etc/init.d/networking stop", which is > all that you are proposing. > I agree. I rather like being able to configure run levels to my liking. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Attachment:
pgp63vlEc4nTi.pgp
Description: PGP signature