From: "Keith F. Lynch" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) Date: 11 Apr 2000 23:23:15 -0400 Organization: RadixNet Internet Services Lines: 127 Message-ID: <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: saltmine.radix.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news1.radix.net!saltmine.radix.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54042 In article , Ben Clifford wrote: > As to what a shell account is, basically it is remote access to a > command prompt, allowing you to run (within limitations) whatever > programs you want. Right. For instance trn, lynx, emacs, grep, irc, gcc, talk, and any programs you write and compile yourself using gcc. > Most ISPs do not provide them for their users (at least in this > country) for various reasons - not much call for them so not worth > the maintenance, also can be a big security hole. This is baffling and dismaying to me. Most users don't know what they're missing. When I first heard of PPP accounts that allow people to "surf" web pages without ever seeing a command prompt, I thought "cute -- a toy account for children". It was immediately clear to me that such accounts allow content filtering that standard shell accounts don't. No other benefits were obvious to me, except that one upload and download files using FTP rather than Kermit or Zmodem, if that's an advantage. One gets one's own IP address, at least temporarily, making one's PC a full-fledged part of the Internet, if that's worth anything other than dubious boasting rights. But today, such accounts are in the vast majority. Even ISPs which still provide shell accounts often neglect them or inadvertantly break them during "upgrades". Journalists and others use the terms "web" and "net" interchangably, as if the net consisted of nothing more than web pages. Don't get me wrong. I think the web is wonderful. But it isn't the whole of the net anymore than e-mail is, or newsgroups, or telnet, ftp, rlogin, ssh, irc, nntp, smtp, uucp, rarp, bootp, gopher, archie, finger, whois, nslookup, traceroute, talk, tftp, or ping. It seems that every time I pick up a copy of Wired magazine or PC magazine, I'm reading about something the authors believe is new on the net, which has actually been around since the 1970s. Chat rooms? Instant messaging? Being able to see who else is logged on? Maybe that was actually a time machine, not a terminal, that I was using back when Jimmy Carter was president. Because I sure had the impression I was doing those things back when some of those authors were still in diapers. A shell account gives a sense of place. You can park your files there. Not just e-mail, but anything at all, just like on a PC. And unlike a PC, it's always there. It's like having a weightless theft-proof PC that's available anywhere you go, so long as there is access to the net there. At home, at work, at a friend's house, in Australia, anywhere at all, so long as you can dial it up or telnet to it. A PC on which you never have to make backups, or repair or upgrade the hardware or software, since someone else does that for you. It's just as accessable and just as fast from a 20 year old terminal you can buy used at a hamfest for $10 as it is from a one gigahertz Pentium system that costs more than a new car. If the shell account doubles as a web server, you can edit your web pages in place, rather than having to have a copy elsewhere which you upload to the server with FTP. And you can change the protection on them, which is useful if there's a page that's not ready for the world to see. Also, you can search the pages for various character strings, look at the stats files, and write and run programs which analyze the stats files. Neither do you have to worry about viruses, or about anyone breaking into your PC. It makes a more efficient use of limited bandwidth. Nothing ever goes down the wire to your terminal or PC except what you want to see on the screen. Enormous spams won't consume your bandwidth or your disk space. Like all other files, they stay on your ISP unless you explicitly choose to download them to your PC. If you want to look at a large file or web page that's elsewhere on the net, the time it takes depends on the bandwidth between that other machine and your ISP -- which are probably connected to each other via T3 lines -- not the tiny bandwidth down the wire to your modem and PC. If you're like me, you'll choose to download copies of saved e-mail and saved newsgroup postings, for archival purposes, about once a week, perhaps over dinner, or in an overnight run. It takes a while since I'm using a 9600 bps modem. There's little point in getting a faster one for day-to-day usage. Even 2400 bps is faster than I can read. Dealing with e-mail is much simpler. None of this POP-3 or IMAP hassle, which started this thread. Your unread e-mail is simply another file on your ISP, which you can deal with any way you like. Me, I usually look at it directly with the emacs editor. Newgroups messages are also just more files which are right there. Is there a downside? The main one is that there is no graphics or sound. It's just text. And lynx -- the standard web browser for shell users -- doesn't support secure transactions, so e-commerce becomes difficult. But none of these limitations are inherent. There's no reason why ANSI terminal escape sequences can't be extended to represent images and sound. And the limitation on lynx is more political than technical, and should promptly go away as soon as the patent on RSA encryption expires. There are still plenty of ISPs offering shell accounts, and I don't think this will ever change, since there is continuing hard-core demand from people like me. Unfortunately most such sites have very old fashioned disk space pricing. Typically $1 per megabyte per month. But I found one ISP that charges just 25 cents per megabyte, and does so just once, not once every month. It's frustrating that many public Internet kiosks disable access to telnet, making it impossible to access one's shell account from them. I have no idea why they do this, unless it's just to be mean. In conclusion, shell accounts have a lengthy history on the net, dating back over thirty years. And an even longer future. I expect most newbies who want to do more than look at pretty pictures will eventually graduate to shell accounts. Either that, or PPP accounts will gradually evolve into the functional equivalent. Just look at IMAP, which was invented to duplicate some of the functionality of e-mail handling which shell accounts always provided, and which POP3 lacks. Maybe next someone will add the chmod and grep commands to the FTP protocol, making it possible to edit one's web pages more conveniently. -- Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP. ###### From: jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> Reply-To: jmaynard@texas.net Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:42:49 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-taULMlUqG3N1O7FPcG/MIANHgzuYpLA5zWgPKS+Dyew9ZX0mhHSWu42PNjt3FXMDpLXhLV8bHrd/ynp!0TFIfDUdn1+AhxMsqBY+sA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 03:42:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!jmaynard Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54032 On 11 Apr 2000 23:23:15 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote: >One gets one's own IP address, at least >temporarily, making one's PC a full-fledged part of the Internet, >if that's worth anything other than dubious boasting rights. ...and, if one runs one's own PC under a real OS, one can have all of the benefits without having his files at the mercy of someone else's operation. I suppose you could say I run my own ISP for providing a shell account, as I have a PPP account with my ISP that allows for true 7x24 connectivity, and I leave my system connected all the time, telnetting back into it from wherever. Not all that many people need this kind of functionality, and those that do will probably provide it themselves. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) Date: 12 Apr 2000 20:03:13 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 214 Message-ID: <6u3dor42ou.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 955562593 839 10.0.3.2 (12 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54061 "Keith F. Lynch" writes: > In article , > Ben Clifford wrote: > > As to what a shell account is, basically it is remote access to a > > command prompt, allowing you to run (within limitations) whatever > > programs you want. > > Right. For instance trn, lynx, emacs, grep, irc, gcc, talk, and any > programs you write and compile yourself using gcc. Assuming you know a) how to use such programs, b) how to use a shell to start them. That sort of excludes 95-99% of todays users. > > Most ISPs do not provide them for their users (at least in this > > country) for various reasons - not much call for them so not worth > > the maintenance, also can be a big security hole. > > This is baffling and dismaying to me. Most users don't know what > they're missing. When I first heard of PPP accounts that allow people > to "surf" web pages without ever seeing a command prompt, I thought > "cute -- a toy account for children". You obviously did not see the light, then. PPP (actually SLIP originally) was the best thing to happen to my home workstation since UUCP. Full real internet, just as if sitting at a workstation on the university LAN. OK, a bit slower :-(. > It was immediately clear to > me that such accounts allow content filtering that standard shell > accounts don't. One can filter an internet connection for _any_ client, local shell or remote PPP. In both cases you are at some time going to go through the ISPs outbound router. Strike there, no difference. > No other benefits were obvious to me, except that > one upload and download files using FTP rather than Kermit or Zmodem, > if that's an advantage. a) it is an advantage (1 step instead of 2, no intermediate file that uses sparse/expensive disk and needs to be deleted after) b) Use an graphical browser (yes, pictures are not just gimmicks, they can also be the content of a site (scanned images!), not to mention sound (MP3s)) > One gets one's own IP address, at least > temporarily, making one's PC a full-fledged part of the Internet, > if that's worth anything other than dubious boasting rights. It is worth a full internet connection :-). Any protocol, any client. Not just the reduced clients that can live with an RS232+ANSI connection to the user. > A shell account gives a sense of place. So does a local workstation. And it is a bigger place, with more space, better console terminal, and subject to user upgradability. > You can park your files > there. Not just e-mail, but anything at all, just like on a PC. > And unlike a PC, it's always there. And you have to login to get at any file, every time you want to get at the file. With a local machine you can chose where the file goes, or even have 2 copies of it. > to it. A PC on which you never have to make backups, or repair > or upgrade the hardware or software, since someone else does that > for you. Which is offset by not being able to do any of them if you do want to (say you want more CPU or more disk space). > If the shell account doubles as a web server, you can edit your web > pages in place, rather than having to have a copy elsewhere which you > upload to the server with FTP. Efficient web authors have rsync for that. Edit on a local mirror of your website (with an local webserver program for testing), then automatically upload the changes. > And you can change the protection on > them, which is useful if there's a page that's not ready for the world > to see. Also, you can search the pages for various character strings, A local mirror can do all of this. > look at the stats files, and write and run programs which analyze the > stats files. Download the logs. I have the entile logs of my web pages since they started (about 3 years ago). I doubt I would afford to rent disk space for them on a remote-login system. > Neither do you have to worry about viruses, or about anyone breaking > into your PC. With a proper OS on your local box you don't need to worry either. > It makes a more efficient use of limited bandwidth. Nothing ever goes > down the wire to your terminal or PC except what you want to see on > the screen. Apart from all them escape sequences. The whole idea of Client-Server is to reduce the transfered data by using the local intelligence to build the user interface, only data transactions go over the net. > Enormous spams won't consume your bandwidth or your > disk space. Auto-delete large mails on entering the mail server, before they even hit the spool file. > If you want to look at a large file or web page that's elsewhere on > the net, the time it takes depends on the bandwidth between that other > machine and your ISP -- which are probably connected to each other via > T3 lines -- not the tiny bandwidth down the wire to your modem and PC. And you re-download for every viewing, and again, and again, ... > If you're like me, you'll choose to download copies of saved e-mail > and saved newsgroup postings, for archival purposes, about once a > week, perhaps over dinner, or in an overnight run. It takes a while > since I'm using a 9600 bps modem. I actually auto-download all mails and all posts of the 5 groups I read (about 1/2MByte per day) over an 14400 modem. > Dealing with e-mail is much simpler. None of this POP-3 or IMAP > hassle, which started this thread. Your unread e-mail is simply > another file on your ISP, which you can deal with any way you like. > Me, I usually look at it directly with the emacs editor. > > Newgroups messages are also just more files which are right there. And your are constantly online while reading and writing. That become real expensive, real fast, if you live in a coutry where phone companies charge your connect time by the minute (yes, that is nearly everywhere outside the U.S.). > There's no reason why ANSI terminal escape sequences can't be extended > to represent images and sound. Apart from redesigning/-writing all them terminals. > There are still plenty of ISPs offering shell accounts, and I don't > think this will ever change, since there is continuing hard-core > demand from people like me. I have an shell account (actually about 100 shell acocunts, user name "root"). But I regard using them from my home machine as an emergency thing. Of course when I do use them I actually use my PPP dialup and then connect over that (with ssh, not telnet). > Unfortunately most such sites have very > old fashioned disk space pricing. Typically $1 per megabyte per > month. But I found one ISP that charges just 25 cents per megabyte, > and does so just once, not once every month. The joys of owning your own disks. > In conclusion, shell accounts have a lengthy history on the net, > dating back over thirty years. And an even longer future. I expect > most newbies who want to do more than look at pretty pictures will > eventually graduate to shell accounts. Unlikely in form of shell logins though. They will rather use telnet or ssh over PPP. > Either that, or PPP accounts > will gradually evolve into the functional equivalent. PPP is already today the base for any service, including telnet. So there is no need to change it. Thanks for network layering. > lacks. Maybe next someone will add the chmod and grep commands to > the FTP protocol, making it possible to edit one's web pages more > conveniently. Chmod your local mirror and then rsync. Grep local mirror. No need. So it is unlikely someone will change FTP either. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### From: blackm00@cam.org (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) Message-ID: References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> X-Forwarded: by CAM Lines: 92 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:08:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.168.100.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 955588085 198.168.100.7 (Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:08:05 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:08:05 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!esel!cosy.sbg.ac.at!test-hog.berkeley.edu!news-x.support.nl!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wesley.videotron.net!wagner.videotron.net.POSTED!dialup-356.hip.cam.org!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54164 In article <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net>, "Keith F. Lynch" wrote: [width trimming] > In article , > Ben Clifford wrote: > > Most ISPs do not provide them for their users (at least in this > > country) for various reasons - not much call for them so not worth > > the maintenance, also can be a big security hole. > > This is baffling and dismaying to me. Most users don't know what > they're missing. ... > > But today, such accounts are in the vast majority. Even ISPs which > still provide shell accounts often neglect them or inadvertantly break > them during "upgrades". > I hadn't used a PPP connection until last fall. I started out 5 years ago reading newsgroups on a BBS, and then when our "freenet" started up finally in mid-1996, I used that, which wasn't quite a shell account but used the programs (Pine and Lynx) familiar to shell accounts; it sure wasn't a PPP connection. But the "freenet" lasted only 4 months; a number of factors, including ineptness, killed it. But one thing that the press all spouted when it came on line was that it was "too little, too late". As if the pretty pictures were the only thing to be seen online, and without that ability, there was no sense in having internet access. (Forget about the fact that when a graphic was important, I could and can always get it and view it separately.). So instead of having almost free access to bring the masses online to some extent, there is nothing. When the "freenet" shut down, there were only two or three local ISPs that offered shell accounts. We were offered some free time on one of them, so I went there, and have stayed here for over three years. At the time, I was using a Mac Plus, and if it could run a PPP connection, it was pushing things severely; I would like to think that I wasn't the only one using older equipment to get basic access on the "freenet", helping to set a standard that you can get by with cheap old equipment so long as you can get shell access. Last fall, the ISP was attacked. The ISPs home page was messed up very early in the morning, but nothing was said about it during the day. I was on a number of times, then went out. When I returned, I couldn't get access. Kept trying for two days, with no success. I thought something catastrophic had occurred at the ISP, and they didn't need anyone else asking about the problem. Each time I dialed it, I expected the problem to be fixed. Finally, it occurred to me that maybe the ISP wasn't having problems, but that the shell had been turned off. At least at that point I had a computer that could run a PPP connection, so I fired it up and over the next day got things in place for the first time. It took about five days before there was any mention of the shell being turned off. The ISP just assumed that nobody was dependent on shell accounts, and so didn't bother notifying the loyal customers. There was a full business day between the initial attack and when the shell was turned off, but nobody bothered to tell us it would be turned off. Each time I dialed in with a terminal program, I got a cryptic message that wasn't explanatory; someone could have fixed things so we'd at least get a message telling us the shell was turned off. It went down hill from there. Suddenly, the shell was the problem, rather than lax security problems. The ISP started up about 1992, and it offered nothing but shell access back then. To this day, the rate page says that the shell is a basic part of what we are paying for, right up there with an email address and 4MB of disk space, yet suddenly we were told that a minority of customers, who happened to use the shell, were in essence getting shell access for free, while everyone else paid the price; it is a costlier ISP than some of the locals, but I always assumed we were paying a premium for the shell. In fact, I was paying a premium for the shell, since I could have gone elsewhere for cheaper access if I could have run a PPP connection. The shell users became the scapegoats, and we were actually called names in official bulletins. It was an odd situation. I still haven't heard from support telling me the shell had been turned off, a question I asked two days after it was turned off, as soon as I got a PPP connection going and ran Eudora. About ten weeks after the shell was turned off, they put back the shell, under somewhat different circumstances. And they claim it's a public service, though the rate page still says its a basic part of the package. This is what happens when people don't know history. Michael ###### From: benc@krustbustr.benzone.org (Ben Clifford) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:43:34 +0000 Organization: benZone Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> Reply-To: benc@benzone.freeserve.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-40.boromir.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk 955811026 375 62.136.141.40 (15 Apr 2000 15:03:46 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2000 15:03:46 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!benc Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54178 On 11 Apr 2000 23:23:15 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote: >> Most ISPs do not provide them for their users (at least in this >> country) for various reasons - not much call for them so not worth >> the maintenance, also can be a big security hole. > >This is baffling and dismaying to me. Most users don't know what >they're missing. When I first heard of PPP accounts that allow people Some people run their own shell accounts - eg. run linux on a local PC and connect that to the internet via dialup. Works pretty well and allows you to have multiple shells at the same time over the same modem connection. >if that's an advantage. One gets one's own IP address, at least >temporarily, making one's PC a full-fledged part of the Internet, >if that's worth anything other than dubious boasting rights. One gets to run multiple connections over the same wire - I can be collecting e-mail, downloading more usenet and FTP files at the same time. >A shell account gives a sense of place. You can park your files >there. Not just e-mail, but anything at all, just like on a PC. Indeed. In the BBS world, there was a sense of place, but on the net there is not so much. Not necessarily all a good thing, though - in the BBS world, one was restricted to whatever forums the BBS carried, and often stuff that united one with ones fellow BBSers was the fact that you all got locked out of the BBS together when the system crashed and the sysop went on holiday... >It makes a more efficient use of limited bandwidth. Nothing ever goes >down the wire to your terminal or PC except what you want to see on >the screen. Enormous spams won't consume your bandwidth or your >disk space. Like all other files, they stay on your ISP unless you >explicitly choose to download them to your PC. It is more efficient in some situations to download the messages - in the UK, there are time based charges on internet access and it is cheaper for all of my mail to be downloaded automatically than for more complex automatic or manual processing to occur to decide which to download. >Is there a downside? The main one is that there is no graphics or >sound. It's just text. And lynx -- the standard web browser for >shell users -- doesn't support secure transactions, so e-commerce >becomes difficult. But none of these limitations are inherent. >There's no reason why ANSI terminal escape sequences can't be extended >to represent images and sound. And the limitation on lynx is more Then it would be Xwindows :-) >lacks. Maybe next someone will add the chmod and grep commands to >the FTP protocol, making it possible to edit one's web pages more >conveniently. There is already scope in the protocol for "non-standard" commands, such as chmod. The ftpd on my box supports SITE CHMOD and even SITE EXEC for execution of arbitrary code. But then it is getting a bit like telnet... ###### From: hmv@port.ac.uk (Mike Meredith at home) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Shell Accounts (was Re: Telnet to mailbox) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:56:50 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 77 Sender: mike@port.ac.uk Message-ID: <2fs9d8.le74.ln@predator> References: <8c71l6$qac$1@janssen.dyndns.org> <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-151.erchamion.dialup.pol.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 955834680 2679 62.136.195.151 (15 Apr 2000 21:38:00 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2000 21:38:00 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!predator!nobody Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:54222 Hi In article <8d0q73$8bj$1@saltmine.radix.net>, "Keith F. Lynch" writes: > In article , > Ben Clifford wrote: >> Most ISPs do not provide them for their users (at least in this >> country) for various reasons - not much call for them so not worth >> the maintenance, also can be a big security hole. As long as you don't run servers on a shell access machine, it isn't that big a problem. There's a number of places that offer shell accounts on a either a free or pay basis, and if shell access wasn't so popular, why do I have to spend so much time protecting our open access Unix servers ? Whilst most of our students (even the computing ones) prefer to stick to PC's, there's a few every year that discover how neat a Unix machine with pernamently on Internet connection really is --- even if they do have to use terminal based progs to make use of it. > if that's an advantage. One gets one's own IP address, at least > temporarily, making one's PC a full-fledged part of the Internet, > if that's worth anything other than dubious boasting rights. Pah. A part-time connection isn't a full Internet connection as far as I'm concerned. > If the shell account doubles as a web server, you can edit your web > pages in place, rather than having to have a copy elsewhere which you > upload to the server with FTP. And you can change the protection on > them, which is useful if there's a page that's not ready for the world > to see. Also, you can search the pages for various character strings, > look at the stats files, and write and run programs which analyze the > stats files. Right. I do all my web-authoring on the server (using vim and other Unix tools). I can never quite understand why people prefer to use their PC's and then FTP the files up. > Neither do you have to worry about viruses, or about anyone breaking > into your PC. No, you leave it all to a professional like me :) (which is of course sensible --- how much do average users know about security ?) > Is there a downside? The main one is that there is no graphics or > sound. It's just text. And lynx -- the standard web browser for > shell users -- doesn't support secure transactions, so e-commerce > becomes difficult. But none of these limitations are inherent. It's been a while since I installed it, but I think the lynx on my main server *does* support secure transactions. It takes a bit of effort to compile lynx with support, but it's doable. > There are still plenty of ISPs offering shell accounts, and I don't > think this will ever change, since there is continuing hard-core I suspect it will change --- ISPs will drop everything but simple connectivity, and the most basic servers. Access to anything else will be through third parties, but shell access will be out there (I haven't got any URL's handy, but there's quite a few right now). > In conclusion, shell accounts have a lengthy history on the net, > dating back over thirty years. And an even longer future. I expect > most newbies who want to do more than look at pretty pictures will The majority will probably never want to do more than point and drool, and send a few emails. But even if it is only a tiny percentage, there will be enough "weird" people out there who want something more sophisticated for shell access to exist. And whilst PPP may not be the most efficient way of accessing a shell account, access via a 56K modem is fast enough for shell access and doesn't cost any more than a 9600 baud modem.