Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: tcp-ip terminal servers Message-ID: Date: 24 Oct 88 18:39:24 GMT Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.24.14.39.22.1988.1467 References: <10591.8810211408@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 15 The primary reasons for wanting rlogin in a terminal server are: - sending terminal type for hosts that don't yet support that via telnet (i.e. 4.2 based instead of 4.3 based) - better handling of ^S, ^O, etc. Rlogin has as provision for toggling local handling of things like ^S. When you enter emacs or something else where that is inappropriate, the host sends a message telling the terminal server to stop handling those things locally. Thus rlogin sessions tend to feel more transparent than telnet sessions. One can do better with telnet than is normally done by implementing telnet sync properly, but rlogin is still a bit more transparent. And of course more existing telnetd's don't generate telnet sync, so in practice rlogin is a big win for sites that don't want to put up their own telnetd. I don't know whether this is a big deal or not, but people who are very sensitive to how the terminal interface behaves may think so.