> Since we all know telnet is horrible in this day and age, why isn't it > dropped entirely? > them find another way. Shouldn't we just end the debate and > get rid of it?
I'd love this if it were possible. However, I work daily with workstations that have virtually every operating system in common use. Windows, Mac and Linux, a total of five different operating system/versions. For -EACH- operating system, I have to have terminal emulators that will emulate VT220 Telnet, VT220 SSH and TN3270 (3279M3G) as well as FTP and SCP clients as well. Furthermore, to use with a Linux/390 server you'll want both line-mode and KDE/Gnome/X-windows versions. Not all O/S's have vendors that are forthcoming with such an array of clients. There is usually a separate client for each of these functions. And if you have such a client that works on one release of an O/S, there is no guarantee that it will work with another release or version. I have stuff that works on Windows 2000 that doesn't work on Windows 98. Nothing that works on Mac OS9 works on Mac OSX, and vice-versa. and of course, anything that works on Linux doesn't work on anything else. And even if you have such a client on your workstation, that doesn't mean that it will be compatible with all servers. Sometimes from Windows 2000 I use Hummingbird and sometimes Rhumba, depending on where I'm going to. Mac OS9 has a great program called TCPConnect (Out of business but it still works) that does TN3270, Telnet, FTP and SSH but not x-windows. If someone could just write a really great universal client terminal emulator that would do all this stuff and cross-compile it to all five of these platforms, I think they'd make a fortune. I know I'd buy about seven copies just for my own use. They say there are three signs of stress in your life. You eat too much junk food, you drive too fast and you veg out in front of the TV. Who are they kidding? That sounds like a perfect day to me! Gordon Wolfe, Ph.D. (425)865-5940 VM & Linux Servers and Storage, The Boeing Company > ---------- > From: David Boyes > Reply To: Linux on 390 Port > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 9:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What is the best way to limit Linux Telnet access to /localho st o > nly > > > Since we all know telnet is horrible in this day and age, why isn't it > > dropped entirely? > > them find another way. Shouldn't we just end the debate and > > get rid of it? > > If the OS vendors are prepared to supply an alternative client capable > of supporting encrypted traffic with their operating systems free of > charge, then you have a prayer of doing this. BTW, the free client has > to be supported on every platform and work with every customized > environment that IT departments dream up, including the ones that > disable Java and Javascript by default, and on operating systems that > don't have a working Java implementation yet. That's why telnet still > exists, and why it's still necessary to have it. > > I do find it interesting that while most of the Linux vendors now ship > their distributions with only ssh turned on, many of the other OSes > still ship with cleartext telnet as the default, including z/OS, AIX and > z/VM. > > I wonder whether anyone at IBM has considered shipping Host on Demand by > default with *every* OS and closing down the cleartext telnet on the > default systems on all the eServer platforms. They can't be making that > much money on HOD, and it'd be a significant statement about taking > responsibility for security that MS and Sun aren't making. > > -- db > >
