| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:33:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> * Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 6 |
> > >* Bruno Lustosa <bruno.lists@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > ><snip> |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > >>anyway, why use old inetd at all? xinetd is way more powerful and secure! |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > >well, I've already been using it for over 10 years, I never had |
| 13 |
> > >serious problems with it, and has all I need. |
| 14 |
> > >So why should I now switch to xinetd ? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > It's more modern. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Ah. Interesting argument. |
| 19 |
> Because it's quite modern (for the kids) to wear overwide pants, |
| 20 |
> there's no need to produce tight ones anylonger ? |
| 21 |
> Great. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No the more correct analagy is that they now make cars with seat belts |
| 24 |
and airbags. You can look for a new car that has no safety features but |
| 25 |
you probably wouldn't. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
xinetd was designed as a SECURE and MODULAR replacement for inetd. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Perhaps you log into your servers over the internet using telnet too. We |
| 30 |
ain't gonna stop you, but don't be surprised if people counsel you |
| 31 |
against it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> > >Wouldn't it make more sense to let "inetd" be an virtual package |
| 36 |
> > >which can be configured by some useflag to get either classic inetd |
| 37 |
> > >or xinet in, maybe xinet as default ? |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > Why? The current way is quite fine, IMO. You can easily select |
| 40 |
> > which package to install, why depend on some USE flag? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Following you line of argumentation, the virtual package "inetd" |
| 43 |
> should be dropped, since people can directly choose "xinetd". |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
sounds like a good idea :) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives