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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
