Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[elric%imrryr.org@localhost]

On 1275567628 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
der Mouse wrote:
>

>I'm not convinced.  I run a number of machines where that is pretty
>much exactly what I want: in the presence of that kind of respawning
>behaviour, whether from a fat-fingered command line or from some other
>cause, taking the service down until a human has looked at it is
>*exactly* what I want.
>
>You appear to be coming from a mindset wherein availability is
>everything: where an overloaded service is better than none at all, for
>example.  It's fine to accommodate such environments, but please don't
>impose their idiosyncracies on the rest of us.

In the e-mail to which you are replying, I specifically stated that
I would leave the feature in but strongly discouage its use.

I fail to understand why you are still arguing.

--
    Roland Dowdeswell                      http://Imrryr.ORG/~elric/