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.
Easy setting of a stunnel?
> > - 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.
Still, better have init 2 than having to hack the boot command line to set
init=/bin/bash, having to remount in rw and editing whatever you fucked up,
before all the services go up and people start login into your server.
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
Where are you going, Starfish and Friends?
--Chad (Charlie's Angels)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
