On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Louie Miranda wrote: .. > > But you'd be a fool. You need your own tank, and SSH is a tank. > > And telnet-ssl?
I don't see the point of this thread. Is this a pissing contest? Granted, telnet-ssl obviates many of the shortcomings of telnet. But the overhead is *EXACTLY* the same as SSH -- SSL also uses RSA handshaking and a symmetric-key algorithm. In fact I believe SSH *uses* SSL. So what advantage does telnet-ssl have over SSH? so that we can see who pees highest? SSH has the added functionality of scp and friends. telnet (even over SSL) can't do that. --- Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mosaic Communications, Inc. -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
