On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 21:36, Ben Lutgens wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 09:01:17PM -0500, Brent Metzler wrote: > > > >Well, one reason you might want a service disabled instead of removed is > >if you need to use it only at certain times. For instance, I have Samba > >installed but don't have it start at boot-up. The only time I need to > >use Samba is to access shares from a Windows box. So I'll only start > >Samba if I need to access it from a Windows box, which is rare. > > Why not use a superserver like xinetd or inetd? Because then XP would be trying to access it all the time, and keep it running anyways. I want XP to think it doesn't exist. :) But, as a dev box there are other things that I've got disabled that I only run when I need them. Web servers, databases, stuff like that. I guess the real point I was trying to make was that you might have something disable that you actually use occasionly, so you wouldn't want to remove it. > >And most of all, for security sake. > > And what with the doze boxen on your network you've got enough to worry > about. At least it's not my data that gets hacked. ;) -- Brent Metzler | AIM: bmetzl1999 brent at bmetzler.org | Y! : bmetzl1999 612-270-0119 | ICQ: 43952639