On Sunday 12 June 2005 19:54, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > El Domingo 12 Junio 2005 01:24, Russell Coker escribió: > > wrote: > > > What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use > > > getty by default? > > > > Is there any reason to change? > > Then I discovered mingetty, which claims to be "small, efficient". I also > discovered that getty has some code to allow dial in our computer, which > most of the people don't use nowadays and it makes getty more complex than > required.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12904 Mar 3 00:13 /sbin/mingetty -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 14264 Mar 23 01:21 /sbin/getty 1360 bytes difference. Also note that both file sizes are between 12K and 16K in size. On a ReiserFS file system with tails enabled this may actually save some disk space. On an ext2/3 file system it won't make any difference to disk space. Memory is also allocated in 4K chunks so it's unlikely to make any difference to memory use. > Then I switched to mingetty and I never had problems with it. > I sold my old hardware before the bug in getty got fixed. > Now it seems that the problem is fixed (according to DBTS), but anyway I > think that it is not a bad idea to switch to the simpler, smaller program > that just-do-the-work. I think that the users that need a different *getty > program have very specific needs and they know how to swich form mingetty > to *getty (and anyway maybe they don't use getty but mgetty). The problem is that a change is likely to cause problems for some people. Without any clear benefit it's probably not worth the bother. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
