[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:22:33 -0400 (EDT), Freddie Unpenstein <fredderic@excite.com> 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   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: