3 Mar 88 03:53:11 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Tait Cyrus) writes:
:The reason I am interested in something other than rsh is because
:here at UNM we are strongly considering disallowing the r* programs
:(rsh/rcp/rlogin) because they do NOT conform to the RFC's
:[(machine name case independent).]
:as well as being BIG security problems (.rhosts).
My big gripe with the r* programs is that they lose UNIX semantics.
For instance, rsh doesn't return the condition code from the remote process -
rsh foovax false
returns true if the connection succeeded. Less important but harder to fix,
rsh is non-interactive; I've gotten real used to Datakit's remote execution
capabilities ("dk other3b /bin/ksh"). It would also be nice to have a
convenient rcp-variant that didn't update modification times.
I'm less bothered by machine-name-case dependence - r* are specifically
UNIX utilities, and case dependence is appropriate. (By contrast, HP's
NS-9000, NS-VAX, NS-etc. utilities are supposed to be transparent between
systems; it took us several days of cable-testing to find that the 350
didn't accept it's name in uppercase, as generated on a VMS microvax.)
-- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:41:30 GMT