Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
Well no one is forcing you to upgrade, but look at all the posts saying that
you are an incompetent moron if you don't...
WRT RH7, I'd have to disagree. Most folks are avoiding it like the
plague for it's choice of compilers.
All our production machines are 6.2
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Karl J. Runge wrote:
Is there a good reason xinetd (at least from redhat) doesn't install
its binary into /usr/sbin/inetd and read its config file from
/etc/inetd.conf?
xinetd uses a radically different approach to configuration than inetd, so
strictly speaking, that
At 02:58 PM 3/25/2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
the other reason it may not be responding that its a REDHAT machine. :-)
Debian rules!
~kurth
Apparently my redhat based machine has no inetd ! Is this possible ?
I guess this explains why it does not respond to telnet.
--
---
Tom
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since each application can have its own configuration file,
it's easier (and safer) to just create/blow away the config
files for each service instead of editing /etc/inetd.conf directly.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Dan Jenkins [EMAIL
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
BTW: I think my problem is that I did a workstation install instead of a
server install. I'm trying that now.
Er, this might be too late, but all you have to do in that case is install
the inetd package from the Red Hat CD-ROM.
--
Ben Scott
Since each application can have its own configuration file,
it's easier (and safer) to just create/blow away the config
files for each service instead of editing /etc/inetd.conf directly.
-Mark
Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Karl J. Runge wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, mike
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 05:37:27PM -0800, Karl J. Runge wrote:
It is good to improve a tool like the inetd service. But to *force*
everybody to immediately change over to a new syntax is uncool IMHO.
I agree. Of course, Devil's advocate types might point out that no
one is FORCING you to do
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that redhat switched to xinetd with RH7.0, but I don't have
a RH7 system handy to verify this. If so, that could be your problem.
Is there a good reason xinetd (at least from redhat) doesn't install
its binary into
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Karl J. Runge wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that redhat switched to xinetd with RH7.0, but I don't have
a RH7 system handy to verify this. If so, that could be your problem.
Is there a good reason xinetd (at least from
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Karl J. Runge wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that redhat switched to xinetd with RH7.0, but I don't have
a RH7 system handy to verify this. If so, that could be your problem.
Is there a good reason xinetd (at least
You may have two different problems.
RH 7.0 used xinetd instead of inetd. Also, telnet is split
between client and server packages (Debian does the same).
Make sure that telnet-server is installed.
-Mark
Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
Apparently my redhat based machine has no inetd ! Is this
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Benjamin Scott wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
BTW: I think my problem is that I did a workstation install instead of a
server install. I'm trying that now.
Er, this might be too late, but all you have to do in that case is install
the inetd
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Derek Martin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 05:37:27PM -0800, Karl J. Runge wrote:
It is good to improve a tool like the inetd service. But to *force*
everybody to immediately change over to a new syntax is uncool IMHO.
I agree. Of course, Devil's advocate types
13 matches
Mail list logo
