Please forgive me if I am mistaken, and in any case I certainly don't want
to start a flame war, but am I right in thinking that Greg's opinion does
not reflect the majority view?
I can't speak for the majority, but I pretty much agree with Greg.
Quibble time: *if* you run cvs on a network you're sure is secure
and everybody on it can be absolutely trusted (to the point where you'd
be perfectly comfortable giving the root password to anybody who had an
actual need for it), pserver is usable. It serves to prevent mistakes.
It may be slightly easier to set up than rsh, or it may not be.
However, if there is any shadow of doubt, then all pserver gives you
is anonymous access, since anybody who wants to do anything not directly
traceable to themselves can easily use somebody else's identity.
Given a valuable code base, and employees, I'd figure that the danger
of having a disgruntled employee is there, and I'd want to use something
more traceable than pserver.