Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Freddie Unpenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS,
>> > separation, etc.)
>> xinetd begone. There is no justification for using anything
>> resembling inetd on a modern system.
> What planet do you live on? I want MORE use of inetd, not less. I
> want to be able to select a service, and tell the system whether I
> want it running all the time, or only when needed.
Why? What you offer here are preferences and opinions, with
nothing to back them up. Previous posters in the discussion have
offered reasons not to use inet daemons -- off the top of my head, it
was a) in the current day and age, an idling daemon does not consume
a significant amount of resources, b) a inted daemon adds complexity
to the mix, and another point of failure/attack c) It adds latency to
response for the daemon (I may have missed other points).
What do you have to counter these points? I can speculate that
you may disagree with point a above, but if so, I think in my
experience point a has been justified.
Rome was not built in one day. John Heywood
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C