default --rsh

Alberto Accomazzi aaccomazzi at
Wed Dec 17 01:10:05 EST 2003

I second that.  Keeping rsh as the default is both an annoyance and a 
security risk, depending on one's local setup and installation.   In 
fact I recently compiled 2.5.7 via "configure --with-rsh=ssh".  Now I'm 
finding out with horror that this screws up things with blocking I/O, 
which defies the purpose.

IMHO using ssh as the remote shell should be the default or should be 
trivial for sysadmins to select system wide (e.g. a configure option at 
compile time).  Forcing individual users to have to set RSYNC_RSH just 
isn't good enough for a variety of reasons.  So I say go with Wayne's patch.

-- Alberto

>>> I'm feeling a little more comfortable with this change now.  What do
>>> folks think about having something like [ssh instead of rsh as default] in
> 2.6.0?
> I'd say go for it.  If nothing else, it would be nice to get away from the
> current situation of potentially *encouraging* newbs to *start* using rsh
> because it's rsync's default behavior.  Sort of an "if you don't know how to
> enable rsh then you shouldn't *be* enabling rsh" situation, if you know what
> I mean.
> Besides, I'm personally at a loss to understand why anybody would (much less
> should) still be using rsh in the first place.  If they're running rsync on
> an incredibly old machine and want to conserve the cycles ssh would use for
> encryption or don't have ssh available, they can always just run an rsync
> daemon.

Alberto Accomazzi
NASA Astrophysics Data System           
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS 31, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

More information about the rsync mailing list