Matt Taggart writes: > I personally am opposed to adding rsh, but I guess the argument > could be made that the client half is probably "standard". I don't > know how many distributions install rsh-server by default though.
I hope not too many anymore :-) > ssh has crypto legal problems. While I'd love to see it in lsb I > think it would be the first crypto thing and would have to fight > whatever battles that means. I think its now possible(at least this > week, who knows with these things) and could happen though. I'd see requiring rsh (even as a client) as a step backwards, but I agree ssh does have legal problems and we shouldn't be requiring programs which may not be permitted to be exported from the US. As a compromise I wonder if it possible to specify the requirement for rsh-like functionality which can be implemented either by rsh or ssh. I think this can wait for a later update of the spec though. Chris. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia
