rtools were deemed almost unused 15 years ago...

[Mike Karels]

On 22 Jun 2017, at 10:53, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:

>> --------
>> In message <20170621034106.GA27501 at lonesome.com>, Mark Linimon writes:
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:36:37PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>> Keep the telnet client. It's still heavily used for more things than
>>>> connecting to telnetd.
>>>
>>> e.g. dumb remote power controllers.
>>>
>>> nc blah 23 doesn't get me very far, am I missing a magic flag?
>>
>> No, you're missing TELNET option negotiations.
>
> nc -t well do that for you.  (I only know this because I just went
> and read the man page for nc as someone mentioned it in this
> thread and I wanted to know if infact it supports telnet option
> negatiation.)
>
> But this does NOT mean I agree with removal of telnet/telnetd.
>
> Isnt this whole discussion kinda pointless if you consider
> this well be handle by packaged base?  Those who want these
> in there systems can have them, and those that think telnet/
> telnetd are a bigger security risk than nc can also remove
> them.

A belated +1 for removing most of the rtools, which were basically
a proof of concept many, many years ago.  I agree with keeping
telnet, which I use constantly to connect to ports other than 23;
I have mixed feelings about telnetd, but I haven’t enabled it
in many years.

		Mike