Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com> writes:
> On 20 Feb 2000, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> : > IMHO, I'd ditch it.
> : > 
> : > ssh does the same thing, btw...
> : 
> : what's the value in actually ditching it?
> 
> like, rsh has no way to actually *fail immediately* if the connection is
> refused because rshd ain't running?

Uh, well, so, that's a problem in the historical rsh protocol and/or
TCP.  (no way to differentiate between unable to connect, and
temporarily unable to connect because of resource limitation issues)

However, if you want to interoperate with other implementations in the
way that people come to expect, then you don't necessarily want to
tweak historic behaviour.  I think my personal feeling would be that
if you're using anything involving rsh, anyway, you've already got
lossage.


> duh?

oh, yeah, that makes me feel all stupid.  if you say it some more,
i'll undoubtedly realize the error of my was and recant...  or
something.



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.