Re: ssh

["Flood Randy Capt AFCA/TCAA" <randy.flood@scott.af.mil>]

1.  Openshh is free and easy to install and use.

2.  ssh is not entirely free.  Not for government use anyway (which is
an issue in my case).

3.  You do not have to compile openssh if you fo not want to.  Just
install it from the CDs that came with your distribution of Linux?  For
example, Red Hat 7.1 (or so) and Red Hat 7.2 include openssh.  You have
to go through more effort to get the commercial version.  So why go
through all that extra effort when you could just use openssh?  Even if
you have the option of downloading either one, you do not have to
compile them if you do not want to.  Just download the appropriate
binaries for your distribution.  What's so difficult about that?

So, for most people, it is easier to install openssh as it comes with
the operating system.  In the worst case, the effort in setting up
openssh is equivelent to the effort to setting up the comercial version.
So, unless you are on a crusade against Free software, why wouldn't you
want to use openssh?



-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Helpingstine [mailto:sig11@reprehensible.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:05 PM
To: silug-discuss@silug.org
Subject: Re: ssh


We'll go through it point by point.  :)  I'm bored... sorry.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Sean /The RIMBoy/ wrote:
<SNIP!>

> Well, I guess your not using OpenSSL for your web stuff either.  So it
> goes.

I don't!  :)

> > ssh 3.0.1 with no problems on my other machines.  My problem is
having to
> > install 9932402942 libs before I install software when I can install
one
> > evil, commercial package in half the time?
>
> Sorry, I'll take the time to install the free package rather than the
> closed package from an arrogant company anyday.  I cannot speak of the
> libs problems you refer to... at least not on that level.
>

Sorry, I was exagerating.  More annoyed at some other things that
require
50 billion libraries to run.  :)  However, ssh is free for
non-commercial
use and very easy to install on any machine I've needed to.  I cannot
say
the same for OpenSSH/OpenSSL.  Could you explain to me why OpenSSH is
better if both it and SSH are free for use?  Assuming that you do not
plan
to do any source modifications.  Most users will not want to do that
anyway..  especially in a non-commercial environment.  Thats the thing
that puzzles me.  Why go to extremes, waste another hour of compile time
and cpu time in order to use software that is open source over software
that is not?

<SNIP!>

> > There is no guarantee that OpenSSH
> > won't have a security hole found tomorrow that SSH Communications
server
> > doesn't have.
>
> Yeah, and I seem to recall that SSH Comm's server recently had a
> hole.  The street runs both ways.  Do you want to pay the whiners fee
or
> would you rather have Theo at the helm.

I just mean that just because it is an open source project doesn't mean
that it is infallable.  It could just as well be OpenSSH that had that
bug
befall it.  Programmers make mistakes...

>
> As much as I despise him, I'll take Theo at the helm rather than some
> company that complains that the protocal name interfere's with their
> company name.  Sound familiar to anyone?  It's the reason I use Linux
/
> Unix rather than some other crappy OS that supposedly had a major
release
> today.
>

Thats their fault.  :)  They should have protected their copyright when
it
was first infringed and they would have won.  :)  It was What-his-name's
protocol at first.  He just made the mistake of GPL-ing it.  :)  Oh
well.
Back to cursing our government.  The US Government makes me sick.  If
you
hadn't read they passed the anti-terrorism bill.  I'll shut up now
before
I get suspected of terrorism and the building is stormed by the FBI.

	Lee



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.
-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.