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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[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. BMShome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030919002833.GE2720>