Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:29:21 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Hans Ottevanger <hans@beastielabs.net>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r279603 - in head: bin/rcp usr.bin/rlogin usr.bin/rsh Message-ID: <54F95751.1060303@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <B59F27E0-1624-4A56-8225-1F9E1E2EB5A3@gmail.com> References: <201503042201.t24M1jDG009278@svn.freebsd.org> <20150305114828.GK17947@FreeBSD.org> <20150305122103.GA90978@zxy.spb.ru> <54F89E97.9040203@beastielabs.net> <B59F27E0-1624-4A56-8225-1F9E1E2EB5A3@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8EF7417D0A0A2A9C417223CD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bez=FCglich Garrett Cooper's Nachricht vom 05.03.2015 19:47 (localtime):= > On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:21, Hans Ottevanger <hans@beastielabs.net> wrote:= > >> On 03/05/15 13:21, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:48:29PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:01:45PM +0000, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>> B> Author: bapt >>>> B> Date: Wed Mar 4 22:01:44 2015 >>>> B> New Revision: 279603 >>>> B> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/279603 >>>> B> >>>> B> Log: >>>> B> r* commands are not precious anymore >>>> B> >>>> B> Modified: >>>> B> head/bin/rcp/Makefile >>>> B> head/usr.bin/rlogin/Makefile >>>> >>>> I guess when they are going to be not precious enough to be removed?= :) >>>> >>>> In modern world of ssh and https, does any OS require them in base? >>> yes. >>> Some telecom equipment require rlogin. >>> _______________________________________________ >> Considering that the r-commands are not particularly large and also no= t really a maintenance nightmare, a would just keep them. They are (still= ) more or less part of the standard Unix toolbox, as perceived by end-use= rs, and you had better not make life too difficult for them. The same is = true for telnet. >> >> I see these tools in use regularly, e.g. to control measurement equipm= ent programmatically. Due to the price tag of those instruments, that won= 't change overnight. The usage is limited to a LAN however, nobody I know= uses these tools over the public Internet anymore. >> >> As far as I know only OpenBSD got rid of these tools up to now. Most o= ther Unix(-like) systems still have them. >> >> And if they absolutely have to go, what happens to the corresponding d= aemons in /usr/libexec (rshd and rlogind)? > Why not just move them to ports so the people that need them can have t= hem=85? Installing ports on non-internet-connected machines, where you have your self-brew pakcgae carried to the destination machine via scp or disk or UFD, is a nightmare. We do not have pkg(8) in base. pkg(8) has circular dependency on itself and every once in a while I have hassels with my build hosts because ports infrastructre inists on a different pkg(8) version :-( Before pkg(8) is in base, moving any thing from base to ports is no option IMHO. I use rsh(1) for zfs management over LAN (most times dedicated SAN VLAN). rsh(1) makes great zfs-snapshot-based backup-push methods easily deployable! rlogin/telnet is nice to have for novices, reading ancient Unix/FreeBSD/nameit books and getting in first contact, IMHO. I need, rsh(1) please don't touch, we have "WITHOUT_RCMDS" for src.conf(5), which I also use, but for completely different setups. Regarding telnet(1) vs. nc(1): I can't second that nc(1) isn't _the_ appropriate tool for network connection testings. telnet(1) is often absued for such tests, but that's not what it's intended for, nc(1) does the job! Nevertheless, I vote for keeping telnet(1) in base. Thanks, -Harry --------------enig8EF7417D0A0A2A9C417223CD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlT5V1YACgkQLDqVQ9VXb8jEvgCdGZ0uHDOD8uJOf4YYZ6ISFfBp bs0AoMpUIjUVZ1FJaa/cz+4qzrMuIMbg =IimJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8EF7417D0A0A2A9C417223CD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54F95751.1060303>