Talk:Comparison of SSH clients
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
- Note that SSH Secure Shell (v.3.2.9) is free and is the only SSH client that supports FTP.
This client used to be listed, but was removed?!! I use it almost every day because of the FTP GUI. The ROTW should be able to know about this too. (I don't know how to edit pages yet, so I'm not going to add this to the actual page). March 2008 Lehasa (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Source model
When I saw "source model" in the edit summary, I was thinking "threads"/"forking"/"single process", etc (like Apache talks about the various "models" in HTTP Server 2.x). If there must be such a column, it might better be called "source availablility" or something similar, although it seems to me to be redundant with the "license" column. Maybe an "open source" column, with {{yes}} and {{no}} values, à la comparison of web browsers, would be better? —Fleminra 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Source model" is the usual term used for this. It is almost redundant, except for Putty which is listed "freeware". Freeware does not imply open source. NicM 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- It seems to me that in "open source model", "open source" is a compound modifier of "model" (some would hyphenate "open-source" to be clear). Searching for "source model" seems to always find it preceded by an adjective ("open"), participle ("closed"), or noun "community" compounding with "source". One instance where "source model" is clearly atomic is here, where "source model" is used to mean "gcc's internal model of the source code". Maybe what we're really talking about is "license for use of object code" and "license for use of source code". Regards, —Fleminra 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have "open source model," "closed source model," "shared source model," etc, it isn't too improbable to refer to them as "source models." Technically correct or not, it is, I think, what most people will instinctively do, fairly accurate (they are all models of how access to source is arranged, right? source models) and IMO clear (I've seen or heard it before when talking about this stuff but the only place I can find it now on its own is Template:Infobox OS :-), I think you're right that is usually seen with open/closed prepended). It isn't the same as license, no license automatically requires the source to be open or closed by default, licensing is about distribution and modification. Even the GPL doesn't require source to be made available until binaries are distributed. License is already listed anyway. However, on looking at it, using the term "open source" is probably a poor idea since it is a licensing/political term as well as a description, so perhaps it may be better to change the column to "Source available: yes/no," which is more neutral and closer to what (I at least) intended the column to mark. NicM 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- Sounds good to me. The community should try to form some official guidance on these Category:Software comparison articles because the same issue is going to come up with every one. I recently started comparisons for web servers and DNS servers, and fleshed out this article, and I pretty much blindly copied what Comparison of web browsers did. —Fleminra 21:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you have "open source model," "closed source model," "shared source model," etc, it isn't too improbable to refer to them as "source models." Technically correct or not, it is, I think, what most people will instinctively do, fairly accurate (they are all models of how access to source is arranged, right? source models) and IMO clear (I've seen or heard it before when talking about this stuff but the only place I can find it now on its own is Template:Infobox OS :-), I think you're right that is usually seen with open/closed prepended). It isn't the same as license, no license automatically requires the source to be open or closed by default, licensing is about distribution and modification. Even the GPL doesn't require source to be made available until binaries are distributed. License is already listed anyway. However, on looking at it, using the term "open source" is probably a poor idea since it is a licensing/political term as well as a description, so perhaps it may be better to change the column to "Source available: yes/no," which is more neutral and closer to what (I at least) intended the column to mark. NicM 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- It seems to me that in "open source model", "open source" is a compound modifier of "model" (some would hyphenate "open-source" to be clear). Searching for "source model" seems to always find it preceded by an adjective ("open"), participle ("closed"), or noun "community" compounding with "source". One instance where "source model" is clearly atomic is here, where "source model" is used to mean "gcc's internal model of the source code". Maybe what we're really talking about is "license for use of object code" and "license for use of source code". Regards, —Fleminra 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VPN
I just annotated the "Technical" table to clarify what I meant when I originally added the "VPN" column: the ability for the SSH client to establish a VPN. In particular, I did not mean that it could work over an existing VPN (which wouldn't be a feature of a network software application, per se). In other words, OpenSSH (for instance) can create a local virtual network device (TUN/TAP), and alter one's local routing table such that all other local network software applications can transparently access resources on the remote network (sans socksification).
Naturally, having added the column doesn't mean I own it or anything… its purpose is subject to deliberation. In any case, a quick scan didn't find anything to confirm that SecureCRT can do this, which is why I'm bringing this up. Is it true? —Fleminra 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, that was an error. I added an X11 forwarding column too but then removed it and must have mixed up the SecureCRT entry. NicM 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- so re-add it,because it is important
[edit] included
Is there perhaps a {{inc}} option next to the yes and no? I ask because OpenSSH is included in Mac OS X, Cygwin, the BSDs and most Linuxes, so perhaps that could be an option for listing in the platforms listing. Janizary 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since inc is for incomplete, I put up included. It's the blue one for Cygwin and BSD right now, opinions? Janizary 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Active" column
Maybe "[date of] most recent release" would be more objective. —Fleminra 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Big notice
I've the removed the big comment about having Wikipedia articles. If we followed it, we would have only three entries. There aren't that many SSH clients out there, we can stand to have red links, so long as at least part of the table is filled in. Maybe restore it once all the current clients have articles, assuming they are all even notable enough. NicM 09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
- I agree completely (naturally, since I added many of the links in question). If it becomes forbidden for articles to mention things that don't yet have articles, then Special:Wanted pages becomes pointless. At a given instant, the threshold of notability in the context of Wikipedia may be higher than the threshold of notability for people searching for a SSH client (the absence of a "pssh" article has not detracted from pssh's usefulness to me). —Fleminra 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I actually find it to be a good thing, because it isn't a rule, more an advisory that makes the people adding clients take into account how this isn't just a place to list everything under the sun, and may encourage people to actually put up articles for these clients that they find notable. Janizary 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a note along the lines of "Please consider the notability of the client before listing here," although that does kind of imply there is some notability requirement. If we want to come up with one, I strongly think it should be applied to the existing entries too. NicM 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
- This page contains a link to a missing article for AbsoluteTelnet. To resolved this, I created an article for AbsoluteTelnet, but it was deleted as spam. I've recreated it, but it is again flagged for deletion because it is not 'notable'. Can I not just replace the link here to the 'AbsoluteTelnet' article with a link to my website? --Bpence 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] telnet
Why is telnet listed on an ssh comparison anyways? Should we then also include rlogin support as a box, it's just as relevent to the subject. I really think it should be dropped. Janizary 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a comparison of ssh clients. Some do telnet as well, I think this is probably worth pointing out. Changing it to telnet/rlogin would be good, if any of the clients do rlogin. NicM 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
-
- Well, SecureCRT does. If we are going to add listings of random other protocols, they should probably be as seperate columns, not merged ones though. Janizary 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't a random other protocol, it is a significant, still often used protocol that performs a similar function and that a number of SSH clients support; I am not suggesting adding an HTTP column and listing "No" all the way down. It is probable to say that those looking for an SSH client will be interested to know that some of the possible choices can do telnet as well. If enough clients do several other protocols, an "Other protocols" column may be best, but most only do SSH and a few telnet. A note about rlogin for SecureCRT may be a good idea, or adjusting the column title to "Telnet/rlogin" is probably appropriate for rlogin's significance (it is very rarely used, unlike telnet). NicM 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
- Well, SecureCRT does. If we are going to add listings of random other protocols, they should probably be as seperate columns, not merged ones though. Janizary 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- While some people do still use telnet, I'd hardly call it significant to ssh users. I don't use putty myself, so I don't know how well it works, but putty also supports rlogin. Janizary 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some people use both telnet and SSH and an integrated client is a useful thing. I'd expect Comparison of Telnet clients to mention that Putty can handle SSH too, so why wouldn't the reverse be true here? Change the column to "telnet/rlogin" or to "Other protocols," if you like, either is fine by me. NicM 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
- While some people do still use telnet, I'd hardly call it significant to ssh users. I don't use putty myself, so I don't know how well it works, but putty also supports rlogin. Janizary 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Clients
The name of the SSH Communcations client changed in 2004 to "SSH Tectia Client" (see http://www.ssh.com/products/tectia/client/), it also has a GUI for the MS Windows version. Should the entry simply be updated or is there value in creating a new entry for the new name to retain the history of the old name (which was actually "SSH Secure Shell" not "ssh")? HughNo 13:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I say just fix the existing entry, this article is only a summary, it doesn't need historical detail. Perhaps consider mentioning the name change in ssh#History (or create SSH Tectia Client). NicM 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC).
[edit] dropbear
http://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html for embedded environements there are port for zaurus and similar(http://www.jbmm.fr/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=112)
[edit] Tags
I've removed the {{prod}} tag since I don't really think this article should just be deleted. What is inappropriate about the tone and is there anything in particular requiring verification? NicM 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- The tone is that of a list rather than an encyclopedia article. The entire article needs references per WP:CITE; at the very least some of the platform compatibility entries are misleading. —donhalcon╤ 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- This encyclopedia has a number of lists and this article matches the tone of them. If you think lists in general are unencylopedic you probably need to make that point in a more general forum (or bring this one up for AfD) since I don't think this complaint is really fixable—unless you have any specific suggestions about how it could be done?
- Which entries do you find misleading, and how? NicM 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- I don't think that all lists are unencyclopedic; however, a great many of the lists on Wikipedia are. There are a few lists which contain reasonable content (for example, comparison of unicode encodings goes into detail about important considerations for an encoding, giving the table some content that at least approaches what you'd expect in an encyclopedia).
- The entries I find misleading are, in particular, the ssh row, the Mac OS column, the SFTP/SCP column, and the almost completely empty entry for "ssh plugin". —donhalcon╤ 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, could probably lose the ssh plugin. How are the Mac OS and SFTP/SCP misleading? NicM 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- Well, "Mac OS" includes both OS 9 and OS X; a casual reader could easily skip over the first and notice the second, leading to confusion. SFTP/SCP are a bit misleading because, for some of the packages (like PuTTy), these clients are a separate download and a separate executable. —donhalcon╤ 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they are both easily fixed. NicM 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- Well, "Mac OS" includes both OS 9 and OS X; a casual reader could easily skip over the first and notice the second, leading to confusion. SFTP/SCP are a bit misleading because, for some of the packages (like PuTTy), these clients are a separate download and a separate executable. —donhalcon╤ 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article links to secure shell in the first sentence, I think it is expected that that article provides the context for the table. NicM 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- If this article is considered to be a part of the secure shell article, why not add {{main}} to make that explicit? —donhalcon╤ 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't considered to be part of it, it is a list of something that the secure shell article explains. {{main}} isn't a terrible idea though. Perhaps {{details}} instead. NicM 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- The addition of the details tag seems appropriate, and removes my concerns about tone because it clearly attaches this article to that, which provides encyclopedic content. I'm still quite concerned by the row simply labelled "ssh", though — on most distributions "ssh" is OpenSSH, I think.; regardless, the ssh wikilink doesn't do anything to make explicit a particular implementation. —donhalcon╤ 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't considered to be part of it, it is a list of something that the secure shell article explains. {{main}} isn't a terrible idea though. Perhaps {{details}} instead. NicM 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
- If this article is considered to be a part of the secure shell article, why not add {{main}} to make that explicit? —donhalcon╤ 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, could probably lose the ssh plugin. How are the Mac OS and SFTP/SCP misleading? NicM 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
-
- Yes, WP:NOT has anti-list restrictions. It doesn't have anti-comparison restrictions. I think comparisons are good ways to make lists encyclopedic. The tone is fine. Furthermore, WP:CITE doesn't make references mandatory. --Karnesky 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Calling a list a "comparison" doesn't magically make it encyclopedic. A list by any other name is still a list; and WP:CITE suggests removing unreferenced content if it is disputed. —donhalcon╤ 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Read WP:NOT and WP:LIST. Structured lists are fine. This is MORE than just a structured list (it contains more information). You dispute specific uncite material, not the article as a whole. why not use the citation needed template where you think it is appropriate?--Karnesky 18:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Calling a list a "comparison" doesn't magically make it encyclopedic. A list by any other name is still a list; and WP:CITE suggests removing unreferenced content if it is disputed. —donhalcon╤ 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:NOT has anti-list restrictions. It doesn't have anti-comparison restrictions. I think comparisons are good ways to make lists encyclopedic. The tone is fine. Furthermore, WP:CITE doesn't make references mandatory. --Karnesky 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Features
It would be nice to have a feature comparison chart. Which products have tab support, macros, transparency, whatever.—pcraven╤ 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- some features...look in the man page of openssh
- openssh suport hardware cryptography devices at least under openBSD
- openssh support smard cards...
[edit] Some Lists don't have all the clients
Ok, the "General" List has 15 clients. The "Platform" List only has 13. The "Technical" List only has 9. I think that either a client is listed in all three, or it should not be listed at all. Tcmstr134 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
