I'd disagree with that - I think that for security reasons all network
services should not be started by default until configured to do so by the
user no matter what they say the machine is going to be used as. Anyone who
plans on running a server of any kind should at least know what service they
need to turn on to do it.
There are linux zombies all over the place just because so many people
install bind and didn't even know it was running a caching nameserver and
never updated their system, then they got cracked.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Florin Grad wrote:
> > now, this is a great debate.
> > Should we or should we not start nfs at boot time ?
> >
> > The default option is set on NOT to run nfs at boot. Why ?
> > I see several reasons for this:
> > - A newbie with enough space on his hard drive would choose full install
> > (in custom section) so he will get dhcp server nfs-server and nfs-client
> > and many other servers.
> > - This will really slow down the boot process and he
> > - will not know that he can disable or either how to disable this
> > services at boot.
>
> I think if a user requests networking at install time, he should get
> all the things you mention, plus the nfs daemon. Otherwise he does
> not have a usable (out of the box) network*.
>
> Without the nfs daemon he can mount file systems from other network
> nodes, but they cannot mount filesystems from his node "Permission
> Refused" - with no clue what is wrong or what to do about it.
>
> * He doesn't anyway, because today's install does not fully set up
> networking. /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, /etc/resolv, /etc/exports (and
> exportfs), /etc/hosts.lpd, are not set up for his network at all!
