Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:28:33 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Scott Gerhardt <scott@g-it.ca> Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> Subject: Questionable merits of inetd replacements Message-ID: <20030919002833.GE2720@saboteur.dek.spc.org> In-Reply-To: <BB8F6355.6D88%scott@g-it.ca> References: <20030918192135.744AADACAF@mx7.roble.com> <BB8F6355.6D88%scott@g-it.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[subject change] On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 01:27:49PM -0600, Scott Gerhardt wrote: > Better Yet, what about using xinetd which is much more configurable and > robust. I am surprised that FreeBSD's default installation still uses inetd > instead of xinetd. FreeBSD's inetd offers features which are not present in xinetd, support for IPSEC policy settings being one of them. I fail to see how using xinetd would be an improvement -- pardon my ignorance if there are features in xinetd which you feel would somehow benefit the user base enough to justify a change. If inetd is not suitable for your needs, consider installing the xinetd port, or integrating it into your own OS engineering build. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030919002833.GE2720>