default --rsh
Alberto Accomazzi
aaccomazzi at cfa.harvard.edu
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 http://adswww.harvard.edu
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://cfa-www.harvard.edu
60 Garden Street, MS 31, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
****************************************************************************
More information about the rsync
mailing list