| 1 |
On 6/21/06, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> well, I've already been using it for over 10 years, I never had |
| 3 |
> serious problems with it, and has all I need. |
| 4 |
> So why should I now switch to xinetd ? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The answer to this 'why' can be found here: |
| 7 |
http://www.xinetd.org/faq.html#why |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Wouldn't it make more sense to let "inetd" be an virtual package |
| 10 |
> which can be configured by some useflag to get either classic inetd |
| 11 |
> or xinet in, maybe xinet as default ? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
inetd is way too old. I tried googling for it, and I couldn't even |
| 14 |
find source downloads for it. |
| 15 |
It's like wanting to use in.telnetd and telnet instead of ssh because |
| 16 |
the former has always served well. |
| 17 |
However, if you can find the sources to it, you can always compile and |
| 18 |
use it, can't you? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Bruno Lustosa <bruno@×××××××.net> |
| 22 |
http://www.lustosa.net/ |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives