I think, rsh is quite obsolete

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:22:30PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
 > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:58:18 -0500, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > The rsh _client_ has its uses in legacy environments.
 > > The daemon, questionable.
 > > Likewise, why we still ship telnet-server in core is beyond me.
 > 
 > Dave, what do you use for file transfers from your C3? I know you have
 > them. Mine is an 800MHz part, and scp -o blowfish pegs the CPU on it.
 > If they had scp -o null, it'd be awesome.

Hmm. mine is a 1.2GHz Nehemiah, which is probably a bit speedier than
the older 800MHz parts. Samuel core ?  It's still no speed daemon,
but I don't find it that slow.  I assume you meant -c blowfish above,
as -o doesn't seem too happy.
Oddly, -o blowfish is faster than the default.
Copying over a 100Mbit LAN, I get a 7MB/s by default, and 8MB/s with blowfish.

I know the newer C3's have crypto magic, so maybe openssh is taking
advantage of that. I honestly don't know for sure.

 > Telnet server though, that I wonder myself. These days ssh clients
 > are ubiqutous. I think they even them them for Sidekicks, let alone
 > Pilots or any Linux-based PDAs.

My new TV recording gizmo has a telnetd. It's the first device/computer
that I've owned that runs one in about 6-7 years.  I can understand
maybe including them in embedded devices (though it's somewhat bad to
be doing that, and having a passwordless root acct, and also talk about
how you can hook up the device to wireless) as a telnetd is
a) less cpu intensive and b) smaller flash space than openssh.

But for Fedora, I can't think of a valid reason why someone would want
to enable a telnetd given the security concerns of non encrypted sessions.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk