Traditional System Services

> # /etc/init.d/inetd has been diverted by the xinetd package. ...
> Does it imply xinetd is more favorable than inetd?

No, it only means you (or someone else) has installed xinetd and since inetd and xinetd cannot coexist on the same system, xinetd is used instead of the default inetd.

A 'diversion' in Debian parlance occurs when two packages occupy the same file on a system (in this case /etc/init.d/inetd). See 'man dpkg-divert' for a more elaborate explanation (but don't use it until you really know what you are doing).

Jochen Schulz

inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a professional setup. xinetd is far more featured, though, and it's been the default for Red Hat systems for years.

Ismael Valladolid Torres

> > inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a
> > professional setup.
>
> Thanks Ismael for the reply. I value each respond. however, I can't
> understand your last part of the sentence. could you rephrase it please?

I think inetd is more than OK for a professional setup. It's ancient and much debugged.

Ismael Valladolid Torres

> whether inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.

I prefer xinetd anywhere. IT's better configurable, even if some programs do not support it and I had to configure it myself yet

Matus UHLAR - fantomas

> inetd is more than ok for a personal environment, why not also for a
> professional setup. xinetd is far more featured, though, and it's been
> the default for Red Hat systems for years.

I would say that the choice between the two is defined not by how 'professional' your host is, but rather by the hostility of the networking environment. Xinetd can limit the number of connections and running processes, preventing some DoS attacks. Xinetd also has a more extensive logging. There are other improvements over inetd (see xinetd faq [0], for example, or this article [1]). So, if your network is not well protected, you may want to replace inetd with xinetd (and don't forget to configure it properly :))

[0] http://www.xinetd.org/faq.html [1] http://www.linuxfocus.org/English/November2000/article175.shtml

Dmitri Minaev

> ... So, if your network is not
> well protected, you may want to replace inetd with xinetd (and don't
> forget to configure it properly :))

You may also not care about it. My /etc/inetd.conf has nothing but comments, and it's not like I worked hard to keep it that way: the "normal" content of my inetd.conf (after a plain install plus some months of upgrade and things like that, none of which related particularly to inetd) is a single line that starts identd. I apt-removed pidentd and now it's completely empty. At that point, I really couldn't care less whether I'm using xinetd or inetd.

Stefan Monnier

PS: Funnily enough `apt-get remove openbsd-inetd' says that a whole bunch of packages depend on it:

> inetd or xinetd is preferred for a *personal environment*.

I like openbsd-inetd because it's straightforward, lightweight and got the OpenBSD seal of approval for daemon software. They make a good ssh as well.

Paul Johnson

> I like openbsd-inetd because it's straightforward, lightweight and ...

openbsd-inetd also has the advantage that it can be made to listen on a single network interface, rather than all interfaces.

Liam O'Toole

http://www.debian-administration.org/polls/77

inetd     <-> 64%
xinetd    <-> 27%
others?   <-> 8%

Unstable now uses openbsd-inetd as the default inetd. I like the security focus of openbsd, but I prefer to use Debian for a workstation and server OS for several reasons. Still, I was happy that the devs chose the superior openbsd tool over an aging default inetd recently. I am heartened to see cross-breading of good work in the FOSS community.

Anonymous (67.184.xx.xx) on Thu 7 Sep 2006