All of these tools were not necessary if Networking were file based, like the /net FS in Plan9.
It is the first major occasion where Unix went in a completely wrong direction. The second one was the X server.
A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
21–30 of 39 posts
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#22There is a better utility available for folks. Ncat - part of famous the Nmap (5) project. It has more features than netcat that people might find useful - like SCTP, SOCKS, etc.. You can find out more about it: http://nmap.org/ncat/
There's a better utility available than ncat. It's called socat. It has more features than ncat that people might find useful. http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/doc/socat.html#EXAMPLES
Dropped into the comments to mention socat. I use it regularly to debug serial and multicast issues or to lash up network logging for random shell scripts. It's a very valuable addition to the toolbox IMO.
Edit: somehow my phone managed to post this comment three times. I've deleted the others
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#23There is a better utility available for folks. Ncat - part of famous the Nmap (5) project. It has more features than netcat that people might find useful - like SCTP, SOCKS, etc.. You can find out more about it: http://nmap.org/ncat/
There's a better utility available than ncat. It's called socat. It has more features than ncat that people might find useful. http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/doc/socat.html#EXAMPLES
[deleted]
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#24There is a better utility available for folks. Ncat - part of famous the Nmap (5) project. It has more features than netcat that people might find useful - like SCTP, SOCKS, etc.. You can find out more about it: http://nmap.org/ncat/
There's a better utility available than ncat. It's called socat. It has more features than ncat that people might find useful. http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/doc/socat.html#EXAMPLES
[deleted]
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#25All of these tools were not necessary if Networking were file based, like the /net FS in Plan9. It is the first major occasion where Unix went in a completely wrong direction. The second one was the X server.
Make a fuse filesystem for networking then...
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#26Be aware that GNU netcat and BSD netcat are incompatible. Many a time have I attempted to cat a file from a Mac to a PC running Linux, only to have found that Nothing Happens (tm). I just recently realized that installing BSD netcat on Linux solves the problem. Not sure what the actual incompatibility is, just a heads up.
If I remember correctly one of them requires you to specify the port with -p separately, and the other gets it from -l. So it's nc -l 1234 on one, and nc -l -p 1234 on the other.
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#27On a related note it's always annoyed me when people use "telnet" when they mean "make a TCP connection" as in "can you telnet to the port?"
When providing support, you have to be very precise when you ask someone to perform a check. The sentence "can you telnet to the port" is unambiguous. The sentence "can you make a TCP connection" leaves the choice of the tool unspecified. Depending of their background, some people may use ping (subject to different firewall rules), or a browser (subject to proxy configuration).
Ping doesn't make TCP connections!
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#28On a related note it's always annoyed me when people use "telnet" when they mean "make a TCP connection" as in "can you telnet to the port?"
When I'm testing a mail server I'll sometimes use telnet to connect (eg to port 110), or openssl for testing secured connections. What should I be using; or is it just the nomenclature you're bothered about?
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#29There is a better utility available for folks. Ncat - part of famous the Nmap (5) project. It has more features than netcat that people might find useful - like SCTP, SOCKS, etc.. You can find out more about it: http://nmap.org/ncat/
There's a better utility available than ncat. It's called socat. It has more features than ncat that people might find useful. http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/doc/socat.html#EXAMPLES
I really like socat, and use it pretty regularly for interfacing with unix sockets. Ncat, and socat have a divergent featureset though. Some combination of the two yields good results.
Re: A Unix Utility You Should Know About: Netcat (2009)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
When providing support, you have to be very precise when you ask someone to perform a check. The sentence "can you telnet to the port" is unambiguous. The sentence "can you make a TCP connection" leaves the choice of the tool unspecified. Depending of their background, some people may use ping (subject to different firewall rules), or a browser (subject to proxy configuration).
Ping doesn't make TCP connections!
I know, but for many people, pinging the remote host is their single idea for network issue analyse.