On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 21:36, Ben Lutgens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 09:01:17PM -0500, Brent Metzler wrote:
> >
> >Well, one reason you might want a service disabled instead of removed is
> >if you need to use it only at certain times.  For instance, I have Samba
> >installed but don't have it start at boot-up.  The only time I need to
> >use Samba is to access shares from a Windows box.  So I'll only start
> >Samba if I need to access it from a Windows box, which is rare.
> 
> Why not use a superserver like xinetd or inetd?


Because then XP would be trying to access it all the time, and keep it
running anyways.  I want XP to think it doesn't exist. :)

But, as a dev box there are other things that I've got disabled that I
only run when I need them.  Web servers, databases, stuff like that.  I
guess the real point I was trying to make was that you might have
something disable that you actually use occasionly, so you wouldn't want
to remove it.

> >And most of all, for security sake.
> 
> And what with the doze boxen on your network you've got enough to worry
> about.

At least it's not my data that gets hacked. ;)

-- 
Brent Metzler					| AIM: bmetzl1999
brent at bmetzler.org				| Y! : bmetzl1999
612-270-0119					| ICQ: 43952639