<div dir="ltr">Yup, that's a fine idea too; I dont think it's an either or, both make sense in different contexts</div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Dustin Kirkland <<a href="mailto:kirkland@canonical.com" target="_blank">kirkland@canonical.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Loïc Minier <<a href="mailto:loic.minier@ubuntu.com">loic.minier@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: > Snappy shell needs not be required for all snappy based images and/or needs > not be on port 22, it is rather an optional interface to snappy, much like > webdm is an useful tool and default web user experience. (Perhaps it should > be implemented as a completely separate addon, but it felt more natural to > tie it to the main command-line tool.) Perhaps we'll have a snappy router > image where it makes sense to make this shell the default, with or without > direct shell access enabled, while a snappy media-center image would not > have it. What if it worked more like a database client, like mysql or psql? You run the "snappy connect ubuntu@host" locally, and the binary runs locally, sending commands and receiving responses to the target host over SSL. That seems cleaner, and nicer than running a shell on the host. Dustin Kirkland Canonical, Ltd. </blockquote></div> </div>