default --rsh

Cedric Puddy cedric at
Wed Dec 17 04:53:08 EST 2003

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jim Salter wrote:

> > 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.

As an administrator of many small machines, owned by
many different companies, in many cases installed
by people other than myself, I can certainly
testify to knowing of only a few machines that
even have any of the rsh services installed,
and even at that they are generaly old hp/ux
boxes and the like that were installed 5 years
ago, etc.

I am unware of any mainstream OS's/distros that
don't have ssh, and am aware of almost nothing
that ships with rsh.

I know that's entirely anecdotal evidence, but
in terms of a show of hands, that's why my vote
is for SSH-by-default.   The other features in the
upcoming build don't interest me enough to upgrade,
but I will upgrade all my boxes in a New York minute
if it means that I can stop typing the "-e ssh" option.

	Best Regards,


|  CCj/ClearLine - Unix/NT Administration and TCP/IP Network Services
|  118 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 5M3, 519-741-2157
   Cedric Puddy, IS Director		cedric at
     PGP Key Available at:

More information about the rsync mailing list