On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Martin Pitt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, > > Gustavo Niemeyer [2015-06-15 13:42 -0300]: >> On the other hand, there's no relevant init cost for the snappy cli, and >> custom shell can become an annoyance rather than an advantage. For example, >> I use traditional unix tools such as grep, sed, awk, sort, all the time >> when interacting with textual output from dpkg, apt, etc, and also use text >> files as temporary storage, shell variables, etc. > > Indeed. It also breaks ssh based automation and monitoring, such as > "ssh snappy.remote uptime" or other remote commands like "cat > /var/log/sensor-data", "journalctl -p warning", etc. > > Moreover, wouldn't a "snappy" shell need to run as root, i. e. you > couldn't log in as unprivileged user any more? > > Perhaps as a compromise we could run a "snappy" ssh on a different > port? I don't see why this would be much different than running "ssh > snappy.remote sudo snappy", but it would save some typing and more > importantly could also be firewalled differently?
At that point I wonder if we should just explore snappy-remote and have this exported via the rest apis (since then the main advantage is that you could drive it remotely). Cheers, -- Ricardo Salveti de Araujo -- snappy-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
