Re: Retiring lpr and lpd

>Rick Macklem wrote in <CAM5tNy67+gp=3DOBMRJaBTWXv_K3axtHZ-cb3c8Xsq5N9JxXk=
wYQ@mail=2Egmail=2Ecom>:
>> For example, if you want to secure it, NFS must be used with
>> either Kerberos or TLS=2E but almost no one does this, due to
>> administrative hassles and performance issues (encrypting/decrypting
>> all those messages results in a lot of overhead)=2E


any chances either hassle or overhead can be fixed?

especially the hassle of config

i mean nfs has already huge burden in configuring it in the first place=2E=
 i was born in 1983 and each time i have to use exports i want to scream

it probably replaced something even worse just like snmp (equal living hel=
l) did but anyway

can the nfs ssl'ing be somehow better?

i mean securing protocols were often as if optional and hard to configure=
=2E nsa only "helped" things a bit=2E it's still super hard somehow

legacy? just like it's so hard for ipv6 to get traction