D]
303.682.4917
Philips Semiconductor - Colorado TC
1880 Industrial Circle
Suite D
Longmont, CO 80501
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/01/2001 02:56:02 PM
To: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@SMTP
Subject: Re: should rsync also be called ssync?
Classification:
On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:54:04PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We're having a debate in which some are advocating changing a
> long-established and respected utility name, with the sole purpose of
> placating ignorant, inflexible-minded fools. Did anybody notice this?
Not changing. Just a
We're having a debate in which some are advocating changing a long-established and
respected utility name, with the sole purpose of placating ignorant, inflexible-minded
fools. Did anybody notice this?
Tim Conway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
303.682.4917
Philips Semiconductor - Colorado TC
1880 Industria
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:31:49PM +1100, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> > It would also ease confusion as everybody begins to think "r* means
> > bad security".
>
> I think this argument is a little weak. There are 143 commands
> starting with r on my system. Only 2 or 3 of them suffer from the rsh
>
> It would also ease confusion as everybody begins to think "r* means
> bad security".
I think this argument is a little weak. There are 143 commands
starting with r on my system. Only 2 or 3 of them suffer from the rsh
style security problems.
I don't think anyone is going to abandon rm and rou
On 28 Feb 2001, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's very much not the case around here yet. Most people use only the
> intranet and are just starting to get aquainted with ssh because of a
> push by corporate security. It's going to take quite a while before
> people to transition
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:04:56AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > >How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
> > >rsync defaulting to "-e ssh" if it is invoked under the name ssync? Around
> > >here everybody is being told they should stop usi
Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Debian (say) changed the default to be ssh, then they'll break
> scripts by anybody still using rsh. (On the other hand, people
> shouldn't be doing that.) Conversely, if standard builds don't change
> the default, then there's not nearly so much poi
> On the whole, I think the time when people should be using rsh is long
> past, and it's about time to add a --with-default-rsh=[ssh] option to
> configure.
This is my idea of the patch. Note that this would make ssh the
default for 2.4.7, unless you specify otherwise at configure or run
time.
(cc'd to Phil Hands as the Debian package maintainer and so presumably
somebody who worries about compatibility/integration issues.)
On 16 Feb 2001, Michael James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
> >rsync defaulting to "-e ssh"
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:38:19AM +1100, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> I actually like the name rsync :)
>
> I'd be very happy with a configure option that sets the default remote
> shell, and I don't mind a argv[0] check that knows about the name
> ssync, but I'd prefer for the package to still be c
The potential problem is the ssh binry location still differs from one
unix variant to another and also depends on the compilation time flags.
Unlike rsh which over the time has found a standard location, "ssh" still
needs finds place in many places.
Then again by default ssh has to be used with
>How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
>rsync defaulting to "-e ssh" if it is invoked under the name ssync? Around
>here everybody is being told they should stop using r* commands and start
>using the s* equivalents so it seems a natural changeover. If there is
I actually like the name rsync :)
I'd be very happy with a configure option that sets the default remote
shell, and I don't mind a argv[0] check that knows about the name
ssync, but I'd prefer for the package to still be called "rsync" as I
think the name is well enough known that a change at thi
Good idea - I'm in favour, although it'll take me a year or two to stop
calling it rsync.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
> rsync defaulting to "-e ssh" if it is invoked under the name ssync? Around
> here every
How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
rsync defaulting to "-e ssh" if it is invoked under the name ssync? Around
here everybody is being told they should stop using r* commands and start
using the s* equivalents so it seems a natural changeover. If there is
gen
16 matches
Mail list logo
