sirjofri writes:
> 06.03.2024 11:36:39 Edouard Klein :
>
...
>>
>> I'll try to compile it on Linux and will let you know :)
>
> Well, it's designed for plan 9 systems, so you're probably out of luck on
> linux, except you try it with plan9ports.
>
That was the plan.
> While we're talking abo
06.03.2024 11:36:39 Edouard Klein :
>
> sirjofri writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 05.03.2024 22:38:59 Edouard Klein :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> sirjofri writes:
>>>
Hello,
I don't use /rc/bin/service anymore, but I use /cfg/machinename/service
instead.
a...@9srv.net writes:
> I wonder what percentage of people who reply are going to be running a finger
> server they wrote. :-) My tcp79 comes from my implementation, here:
> http://txtpunk.com/finger/index.html
>
> I think we've got enough interoperable unicode-aware implementations we can
> s
hiro <23h...@gmail.com> writes:
> all this makes sense. thank you.
> i might be dense, but what's the problem with inetd exactly?
>
I have two main gripes with it:
- it runs as root, in order to switch users when launching a server, and
therefore is a security risk.
- it can be configured only
a...@9srv.net writes:
> I wonder what percentage of people who reply are going to be running a finger
> server they wrote. :-)
Indeed, it may be why I can't seem to find a good, standard
implementation: there are as many implementations as servers.
> My tcp79 comes from my implementation, here
sirjofri writes:
> Hi,
>
> 05.03.2024 22:38:59 Edouard Klein :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer.
>>
>>
>> sirjofri writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I don't use /rc/bin/service anymore, but I use /cfg/machinename/service
>>> instead. My contents are copies of what's in /rc/bin/service or
