On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:22:11PM -0500, Yaron wrote: > inetd/xinetd are... or at least USED to be what started up, well, > internet services. The idea was that you didn't have individual > programs listening on specific ports - you just had inetd running. > It'd listen on specified ports and when an incomming connection was > made, it'd route it to the correct program. > > For example, if there was a connection on port 79, it would throw it > to finger. Port 23 would get thrown to telnet, 20/21 would go to > ftp, etc. > > On secure systems it is common practice to disable inetd/xinetd... > and frankly I'm pretty sure it's dead by default on most modern > systems. It's basically a very outdated method of listening for > incomming connections. Why is it outdated? > Nowadays most programs/protocols just run > their own daemons. inetd is both a security risk Not necessarily, with the proper SELinux domain enforcement it can be as secure as starting daemons from init. > and no longer > needed because we have plenty of memory/other resources. We might have that, once the system gets to steady state. But, why should I wait for init to spawn all those services, when I want to get first to the desktop? Or to some other service that is critical, and I just rebooted the machine for an update. What goes around, comes around. Behold, systemd! Cheers, florin -- Sent from my other microwave oven. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20130509/03f740a0/attachment.pgp>