[aclug-L] Re: Shells

[Matt Pankratz <mattp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay...so maybe I'm NOT going to bed...

The numero uno reason I want shell access is, thanks to Karl Friesen,
mail.

I'm a PINE snob, and I like having the majority of my mail in one
place.  I also like the "portability" that server-resident mail offers.

In addition I use my shell account on an almost daily basis for things
like NSLOOKUP, pings, traceroutes, and ftp.  I am aware that
"non-shell" alternatives exist for all of the above.  However, beyond the
fact that I learned to do all these things in a shell environment, I think
using shell for these things simplifies troubleshooting.  If I'm testing
a new FTP account for access rights and functionality, I'm going to test
via shell so I can cut application out of the troubleshooting picture.

I also very frequently use my shell account to test website
availibility.  In many cases, I can't verify website _functionality_
(links and lynx are what they are).  BUT, I can prove that a specific is
or is not public accessable.

Just some quick thoughts...

Matt Pankratz
mattp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.mattyp.net

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Steven Saner wrote:

> 
> Everyone that reads linux-help knows that I am involved in an ISP
> venture. I wanted to get some peoples input on the concept of shell
> servers. One of the common questions that is asked about an ISP,
> especially from people on a list such as this, is: do they offer shell
> access?
> 
> First of all, I understand the value of a shell based computing
> environment. I am all over that. I wouldn't compute without it (or I
> wouldn't want to anyway). But with Linux, and other assorted free Unix
> like OS's, I don't need my ISP in order to have a shell based
> environment.
> 
> So, my question is, why do people want their ISP to offer shells? What
> do you want in the shell service? In other words, what would you use
> the shell for, that you can't do yourself?
> 
> It is somewhat difficult to build an ISP model that scales well, is
> secure, etc. and support shell access. Most of the security issues
> that come up are "local user" issues, so if you support shells, you
> have to keep on top of the updates more religiously. A shell gives a
> customer the ability to do things that you might not want them doing,
> such as running processes and the like that can be a denial of service
> to other customers.
> 
> Any comments would be welcome.
> 
> Steve


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi