Re: rfc: gnome-inetd

<quote who="Sean Middleditch">

> It could also handle any mDNS registration automatically, even for
> services that don't themselves know how.

That's a pretty reasonable rationale for centralising it.

> You know, I thought about putting something like that in my original mail,
> but then actually thought that it might be *bad* thing.  You know, just
> because they're services shared over a port doesn't mean they belong in a
> dialog together, ya?
> For something where its all sharing (Document Sharing, Desktop Sharing,
> Music Sharing, whatever) perhaps it makes sense

Definitely only talking about remote access and sharing. I imagine distros
would put more system-level stuff in there like "Secure Shell", "Windows
File Sharing", etc.

> but not so much for things like chat programs and such.  Although I *do*
> think those should be rolled together - the difference between video chat
> and text chat isn't all that much, but the fact that one is handled in
> GnomeMeeting and the other in Gossip/GAIM is kinda thrown in your face
> constantly...
> (And yes, before someone mentions it, I know a lot of chat protocols can't
> work "reactively" in an inetd-style, as they have to connect to and stay
> connected to a central server.  There are things like iChat's local-net
> protocol and so on, however.)

I can't see any 'sharing' or user daemon oriented stuff in your examples

> >  [x] Remote Desktop    (Configure...) -> runs the little config dialogue
> >  app [ ] File Sharing
> > 
> > (Man, it's hard to describe g-u-s accurately and concisely, without
> > confusing it with things like Samba or NFS. Maybe "Web File Sharing"?)
> "What do you mean, Jeff?  It uses WebNFS?"  ;-)

"Personal File Sharing" might be good.

- Jeff

-- 2005: Canberra, Australia      
                          No pants is good pants.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]