Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: April 2001:
[aclug-L] Re: Shells

[aclug-L] Re: Shells

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Shells
From: John Reinke <jmreinke@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:03:25 -0500
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

Well, the thing I like to do with shell access most importantly is email. I
like to be able to check my email from anywhere via ssh or telnet, and I
prefer the quickness of that to a web-based email system. I was on vacation
last year and had to check email with a web-based system, which is no fun
when you have 100+ messages in your inbox, and every read/reply requires
multiple web pages loads on a dialup connection. I was able to telnet from
a hotel on a different day, and it was _much_ faster.

I never have this happen to me, but we know from working at an ISP that
occasionally an email client has problems retrieving a message/attachment,
and shell access to email can allow the "educated" user to handle this

Secondly, I like the option to do things I couldn't do with a regular FTP
client. Normally, you can FTP files for your web site (or a procmail filter
or something), and that is fine. But, once again, if I'm not at home, I
won't have access to the files, so I want to have access to ssh in, and
create or alter those files in vi, alter the permissions, etc...

Those are the main "legitimate" needs for shell access, and they could
probably be addressed with some sort of restricted shell or something.


>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?

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]