Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net!.POSTED.omega.home.tnetconsulting.net!not-for-mail From: Grant Taylor Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: Shell providers? Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:19:43 -0600 Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: References: <20240308013928.226@kylheku.com> <87zfv8v6iq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20240308175149.856@kylheku.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:19:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net; posting-host="omega.home.tnetconsulting.net:198.18.1.140"; logging-data="19970"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@tnetconsulting.net" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20240308175149.856@kylheku.com> Bytes: 1680 Lines: 14 On 3/8/24 19:53, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > We are muddying the argument now. The argument is that if you have > a machine which can run an SSH client, chance are that instead of that, > you can just run a freeware distro where you have mutt, pine, irssi, tf, > and whatnot. The Chrome OS devices that I've used would like to disagree with you. It's trivial to get an SSH client. Doing so is even supported by the hardware and software vendor. Trying to get to a shell on the system or replace to OS thereon is definitely not supported. -- Grant. . . .