On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:33:22 +0200 Enrico Weigelt 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.
No the more correct analagy is that they now make cars with seat belts and airbags. You can look for a new car that has no safety features but you probably wouldn't. xinetd was designed as a SECURE and MODULAR replacement for inetd. Perhaps you log into your servers over the internet using telnet too. We ain't gonna stop you, but don't be surprised if people counsel you against it. > > > >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". > sounds like a good idea :) -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
