Linus Torvalds wrote: > Of course, you may be right on wuftpd. It obviously wasn't designed with > security in mind, other alternatives may be better. I run proftpd on all my ftp servers - it's fast, configurable and can do all the tricks I need - even red hat seems to agree that proftpd is the way to go. Visit any red hat ftp site and they are running proftpd - So, why do they keep shipping us wu-ftpd instead? That really frosts me. jjs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? jamal
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Gerhard Mack
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? J Sloan
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Michael Peddemors
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Florian Weimer
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Tristan Greaves
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Dan Hollis
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jonathan Thackray
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Matti Aarnio
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jonathan Thackray