From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: chet.ramey@case.edu (Chet Ramey) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:34:12 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Were all of you.. Hippies? In-Reply-To: References: <20170320214858.TIJoR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <009301d2a1c9$cb604c70$6220e550$@ronnatalie.com> <20170321202839.GG21805@naleco.com> <20170324001832.GA13511@naleco.com> <20170324002754.GW23802@mcvoy.com> <20170324073748.GA39889@wopr> Message-ID: <932daf73-bf9f-2916-abe2-d55315ea1bcd@case.edu> On 3/24/17 1:06 AM, shawn wilson wrote: > I actually have strong opinions about this (read: disagreements). Your > shell shouldn't know about connect() - I guess allowing writing to > /dev/eth0 would work for me. Yeah, but nobody wants to do that. > But in bash, IIRC that damn ghost file > thing is like half of the files in source and it helps nothing. What does this mean? > Maybe > if the point was to allow some remote shell (like X does) I could see > it (but than I'd scream about the security implications about > something like that). And I'll say again - why? You want a socket - > nc, ncat, socat - pick one - don't abuse your shell. You always have the option of not compiling it into the shell. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet at case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/