> > Was that a good change Mike? The other way was so accepted.. > > It's much easier to maintain and administer, and also way more > flexible in most respects - take a look at, and you'll like it. Well, xinetd is not at fault with swat, as swat http server gives: 400 Server Error chdir failed - the server is not configured correctly I humbly withdrawn all critisim to xinetd - for now! -eric wood _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Burger
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Manish Kathuria
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Tym Rehm
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Chambers
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Werner Puschitz
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Ted Gervais
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Eric Wood
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Ted Gervais
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael Burger
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Chambers
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Michael McPhail