Subject: Re: kerberos V
To: None <>
From: Lars-Johan Liman <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/29/2001 21:28:13
> Or NIH? ;-)
> Not Bloody Likely.

Didn't think so. ;-)

> Adding that support back to these programs is not a major
> undertaking. The question, to my mind, is whether it is worth
> enhancing or even maintaining them at all.

That's fine as long as they are replaced with something that has the
following properties:

a) Allows me to do one-liners to execute programs on a remote machine
   in a somewhat secure fashion based on Kerberos authentication.
   (Logging in is not an option and I want to do more than transfer

b) Is easily built on or provided in a wide variety of Unixen.

c) Is based on some kind of open and well-known protocol. (Doesn't
   have to be a standard, as long as there isn't multiple debated
   versions with gazillioins of non-mandatory options.)

Autoconf may be icky-sticky, but so is the world it's working in. :-/