On 6/28/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >* Bruno Lustosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>anyway, why use old inetd at all? xinetd is way more powerful and secure!
> >
> >well, I've already been using it for over 10 years, I never had
> >serious problems with it, and has all I need.
> >So why should I now switch to xinetd ?
>
> It's more modern.
Ah. Interesting argument.
Because it's quite modern (for the kids) to wear overwide pants,
there's no need to produce tight ones anylonger ?
Great.
Modern in the computer world = more efficient, robust, better support,
continue developing, more features, less security holes.
Modern in the fashion world = no one can ever put it in words.
> >Wouldn't it make more sense to let "inetd" be an virtual package
> >which can be configured by some useflag to get either classic inetd
> >or xinet in, maybe xinet as default ?
>
> Why? The current way is quite fine, IMO. You can easily select
> which package to install, why depend on some USE flag?
Following you line of argumentation, the virtual package "inetd"
should be dropped, since people can directly choose "xinetd".
<begin MHO>
Its not even in portage, people just stopped using it... xinetd has
all the functions of it, its like using the old bsh because bash is
"modern". I run xinetd in a pentium 100, there's no need for the old
inetd unless you still have an old (already installed and configured)
workstation running an old OS (but still serving its purpose). Its
evolution baby!
<end MHO>
--
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
