Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <[e-mail]>
By author:    J Sloan <[e-mail]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> 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.
> 

proftpd is not what you want for an FTP server whose main function is
*non-*anonymous access.  It is very much written for the sole purpose
of being a great FTP server for a large anonymous FTP site.  If you're
running a site large enough to matter, you can replace an RPM or two.

	-hpa
-- 
<[e-mail]> at work, <[e-mail]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt