X client without X server

[Arthur Chance]

On 07/03/13 16:26, Bill Tillman wrote:
[Vast snip.]

> Just my 2¢ worth on this. Sure, one always wants to keep overhead
 > low. But the days of limited RAM, small hard drives, etc...are long
 > since behind us. I remember in 1994 when and IT consultant came in
 > and built a Novell server for us with a whopping 1 GB hard drive.
 > And back then how we thought with a 1 GB hard drive we'd never run
 > out of space. Well these days one could easily run out of space with
 > such a small hard drive. But with today's systems having 2 or 3 TB
 > drives and GB's of RAM, something as trivial as X-Server should not
 > be a problem. If you don't need it, don't run it. But to worry about
 > the space it takes up is kind of a moot point these days. And like
 > some of the other replies mentioned, xterm may not require it, but
 > one of xterm's dependencies may. I run Asterisk routinely on my
 > systems and I'm always amazed at how installing one port requires
 > no less than 38 other ports to be installed as well.

There's another reason beside space for not wanting to install a port 
unless it's definitely needed, especially on any machine that is world 
facing - security. If a port is installed but unused it might aid an 
attacker who gets part way into a system to get further privileges. If 
it's not installed it definitely can't be used for that. I apply the 
same principle to the base system on world visible servers - if it's not 
used and there's a src.conf option to remove it, it gets removed.

As the old sysadmin joke goes: "Yes, I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid 
enough?"

-- 
In the dungeons of Mordor, Sauron bred Orcs with LOLcats to create a
new race of servants. Called Uruk-Oh-Hai in the Black Speech, they
were cruel and delighted in torturing spelling and grammar.

		_Lord of the Rings 2.0, the Web Edition_