Re: rsh fallback to rlogin?

[Magnus Holmberg <mho@era-a.ericsson.se>]

In message <5laevblk28.fsf@assaris.sics.se>, Assar Westerlund writes:
>Magnus Holmberg <mho@era-a.ericsson.se> writes:
>> In message <5ln1ze4gco.fsf@assaris.sics.se>, Assar Westerlund writes:
>> >Does anybody really care any longer about the traditional
>> >functionality of rsh falling back to calling rlogin when given no
>> >command?  Otherwise, it's not going to get implemented in heimdal rsh.
>> 
>> I think yes. It seems like most people never calls rlogin directly, just
>> 'rsh host'.
>
>Why does that have to be done in the rsh program?  What about a shell
>function?

Well, no problem at all if the shell function is there... But, if you
want people to be able to do what the have always done, then, yes, the
rsh program has to do it. (And the question was, I think, if people still
used this functinality, and yes, they do...)

>rsh() {
>  if test $# -eq 1; then
>    rlogin $*
>  else
>    command rsh $*
>}
>
>And there is also the question as to why you would want to run rlogin.

I personally have no need for rlogin anymore, but I know a lot of people
who use it (by name of rsh...) often enough.

	- mho
--
Magnus Holmberg, UNIX support			     mho@era-a.ericsson.se
Tel 71713						mho@stacken.kth.se