rsm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Robert S. Maier) (08/11/86)
I have modified 'rsh' to place the stdin TTY in CBREAK mode. This
allows characters typed at the keyboard to be passed immediately to
the remote process, and facilitates the running of remote text editors
and such.
The modified rsh seems to work fine. Is there any reason why rsh
wasn't set up to do this from the beginning? Are there any hidden
drawbacks?
Robert Maier ARPA: rsm@carl.ma.utexas.edu / rsm@ngp.utexas.edu
Dept. of Math. UUCP: ..{ihnp4, allegra, seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!rsm
Univ. of Texas AT&T: (512)471-7711chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (08/12/86)
In article <3784@ut-ngp.UUCP> rsm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Robert S. Maier) writes: >I have modified 'rsh' to place the stdin TTY in CBREAK mode. This >... facilitates the running of remote text editors and such. >The modified rsh seems to work fine. Is there any reason why rsh >wasn't set up to do this from the beginning? Most certainly. That is what rlogin is for. (To those who do not agree, I will say only this: Yes, it is true that a CBREAK rsh is not quite the same as rlogin. That is because rsh is supposed to be far simpler than rlogin. Handling the full job of emulating a local terminal is rather complex; and rsh does none of the task, while rlogin does as much as it can.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu