On 9/14/2011 8:09, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> You paid for your OS, you also have to pay for your applications.
> Only loonies provides free stuff of excellent quality on that platform.

I think you just insulted every member of TAG. ;-)

Seriously, googling for "gnu win32" tends to get you ports of everything.

http://linuxmafia.com/ssh/win32.html

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/14/2011 1:37, Invisible wrote:
> Really? I thought they just connect to a central game server. (Although...
> actually they mostly seem to use UDP, so "connect" is a little nebulous.)

Bingo.

>> Or iconify the remote screen, copy the file, expand the remote screen,
>> paste the file.
>
> Oh, that works?

Why wouldn't it?

>> Or just let RDP mount the disks over the link, so they
>> show up as networked drives on the remote machine.
>
> Ah - it [optionally] connects local and remote disks, the same way it
> connects printers, right?

Yep. And sound. And USB ports.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:42:31 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> In seriousness, manpages are, by definition, *reference*
>>> documentation. What the standard Unix system lacks entirely is any
>>> kind of *explanation*.
>>
>> Depends on the manpage.
> 
> No, pretty much all of them list the command options, and that's it.

So I'm lying, then, is that it?

I suspect that I spend just a *tiny* bit more time than you do reading 
man pages - and I wouldn't make an assertion that "it depends on the man 
page in question" if it weren't actually the case.

> The manpage for bash practically lists the BNF grammar for shell
> scripts, but fails to provide any useful introductory material for
> anyone just trying to get started. (E.g., how the **** to I execute the
> same command for every file in this folder?)
> 
>>       PasswordAuthentication
>>               Specifies whether password authentication is allowed. 
>>               The default is “yes”.
>>
>> Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> Does that disable CHAP as well? Or only plain password authentication?
> (If I'm remembering this right, CHAP is basically password
> authentication, but with a slightly more secure wire protocol.)

It doesn't say anything about CHAP.  I'm pretty sure it also doesn't 
change the password encryption method from AES to Triple-DES as well.  
It's not likely to document everything it *doesn't* do, just what it 
*does* do.

>> There's a difference between configuring sshd and using the public key
>> for authentication.
>>
>> You *can* do a host key, but in most cases it's not necessary:
>>
>>       Normally each user wishing to use SSH with public key
>>       authentication runs this once to create the authentication key in
>>       ~/.ssh/identity, ~/.ssh/id_ecdsa, ~/.ssh/id_dsa or ~/.ssh/id_rsa.
>>        Additionally, the sys- tem administrator may use this to
>>       generate host keys, as seen in /etc/rc.
> 
> I thought the host key is how the server identifies itself to you, not
> how you identify yourself to the server?

Host keys aren't very commonly used AFAIK.

> At any rate, it's news to me that you can create a ~/.ssh folder and
> sshd will actually take note of this. I don't recall the manpage
> mentioning this at all.

It's always been that way.  The cited bit above is from the man page and 
says pretty explicitly that the user's keys are in ~/.ssh

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:57:09 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Myself, I prefer signature authentication, with ~/.ssh/authorized_keys .
> My password/passphrase locally unlock the private key, and the public
> key is in the remote host(s) user directory.

As do I - I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought in explaining how the 
key is put on the remote machine - it does indeed go in the 
authorized_keys file.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:33:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 14/09/2011 04:22 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:48:55 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Let me rephrase: There are no SSH servers that are free software.
>>
>> openssh is released under the GPL, and has been around for quite some
>> time now (certainly more than 5 years - I'd say more than a decade).
>>
>> And there are versions that run on Windows - using cygwin or not.
> 
> When I looked, I couldn't find any precompiled Windows binaries for
> OpenSSH anywhere.

They are available now.  Cygwin has also been around for a while, and 
includes an sshd server (in fact, a couple of the versions I found for 
Windows were essentially stripped down installations of cygwin).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>
>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than one
>> person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>
> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>
> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into the
> windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
> running X clients talking to two different X servers.

Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?

I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2011 5:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 8:09, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> You paid for your OS, you also have to pay for your applications.
>> Only loonies provides free stuff of excellent quality on that platform.
>
> I think you just insulted every member of TAG. ;-)

Or complemented them.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 14-9-2011 22:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>>
>>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than
>>> one
>>> person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>>
>> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>>
>> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
>> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into the
>> windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
>> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
>> running X clients talking to two different X servers.
>
> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
>
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?
>

I have done that, why?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:52:10 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> Yep. You still need a computer for each user, tho.
>>>
>>> Sure. But I mean, you can set up an application server that more than
>>> one person can access, without doing anything particularly special.
>>
>> You can do exactly the same thing on Windows that you do on Unix.
>>
>> Log into the windows box remotely. Start an X client and point it at
>> your display. Disconnect without logging out. Someone else logs into
>> the windows box remotely. They start an X client and points it at their
>> display. They disconnect without logging out. Guess what? Windows
>> running X clients talking to two different X servers.
> 
> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
> 
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

Yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.09.2011 22:52, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> Does anyone, anywhere on Earth, actually run X on Windows?
>
> I mean, I gather that you *can*. But does anybody actually *do* this?

An X /server/ (that is, the X terminal software)? Absolutely. Guess how 
I "remotely" control my Linux machine (which I use primarily for 
scripted test-runs of POV-Ray) from my Windows machine (which I use for 
everyday stuff, including POV-Ray development with MS Visual Studio).

Sure, I could just plug in a keyboard and mouse, and use the analog 
input of one of my displays to switch between the two; but having two 
keyboards and two mice on the desk really sucks, KVM switches aren't 
free (as in free beer), and being able to use the Windows task bar to 
switch to the Linux desktop is quite handy as well.


An X /client/ on Windows (that is, software running on a Windows host 
and displaying on an X terminal)? Doesn't sound like a common use case 
to me.

Post a reply to this message