Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!atha!lyndon
From: lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: rsh vs remsh -- how does one handle the name conflict?
Summary: let's wait for SVR4
Message-ID: <1644@atha.AthabascaU.CA>
Date: 5 Feb 90 20:20:02 GMT
References: <9001311506.AA04448@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Athabasca University
Lines: 17

I have been wondering how to handle the conflict between the USG
and BSD rsh commands. I consider the BSD rsh to be the "real thing"
since it seems to be used more in that context. The only time I've
seen rsh used as a restricted shell is inside the sysadm command
under SVR3. Since I consider sysadm as being hopelessly broken, I
classify the USG behaviour as depricated :-)

Since SVR4 is merging in the BSD networking utilities (to some extent,
anyway), I would think that AT&T has already had to deal with this
behaviour. Could someone familiar with SVR4 comment on this?


-- 
Lyndon Nerenberg  VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University
     {alberta,decwrl}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA

                     UREP: Peru in disguise?