m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) (01/18/89)
Is there a good reason that rcp does not check to see if a third-party copy is to take place on the same machine, and if so to start a "cp" instead of an "rcp" there? Seems to me that that would save some time (not much; I just wondered why it wasn't done). The only reason I could think of would be the possibility that the remote host would interpret its own name (as far as the local system is concerned) differently. For example: rcp zebra:xyz zebra:abc The local host has its own idea of what "zebra" means, and will send that host an rcp command like this: rsh zebra -n rcp xyz zebra:abc I suppose that the machine thought to be "zebra" by the local host may call itself something else, but that seems pretty bad, in the sense that not a whole lot of stuff would work if that were the case. Seems like rcp on the local host could determine that the copy lay entirely within zebra, and request a simple cp: rsh zebra -n cp xyz abc Maybe I'm wrong, though. -- Mike McNally Lynx Real-Time Systems uucp: {voder,athsys}!lynx!m5 phone: 408 370 2233 Where equal mind and contest equal, go.