On Tuesday 10 June 2003 10:07, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:36:23AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> xinetd isn't a pos, its quite a bit more secure, and less
>> wastefull of system resources than inetd because things don't get
>> started at boot time and left around in case they are needed, they
>> are started on demand, and killed when the demand is gone.  Its
>> also had a couple of security related updates fairly recently and
>> the version I have installed is now 2.3.11 IIRC.  If yours is
>> older, I'd get the latest before I re-installed it.
>
>Actually, Gene, I'd have to take issue with this.  xinetd does not
> leave any fewer processes "hanging around" than inetd does.  In
> fact, they are functionally equivalent pieces of software.  The
> primary difference between the two is that xinetd wastes inodes on
> your filesystem.  =)
>
>> There has to be some reason the services won't start, so please
>> post an 'ls -l' of the /usr/local/libexec directory.  Also an 'ls
>> -l' of the amanda src directory, and a 'cat' of your configuration
>> script.
>
>Since amanda works properly for Mike under inetd and not under
> xinetd I would suspect a problem with his xinetd build.  My
> question to Mike is, if it works under inetd, why are you bothering
> with the PITA that is xinetd?  ;-)
>
>Brandon D. Valentine

Chuckle...  Is this a precursor to a replay of the vi/emacs wars? :)

Once I figured out xinetd well enough to use it,  I've found it quite 
co-operative, and not as cryptic as inetd was.  But I'd imagine there 
are others who find it 'less filling' :)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.