Re: OpenSSH uploaded replacing ssh, please test

[Chris Pimlott <pimlottc@null.net>]

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Dan Brosemer wrote:

> TDR would like OpenSSH to be _the_ ssh.  When people talk about ssh they
> mean OpenSSH 99% of the time, people don't go to f-secure to download ssh,
> they go to openbsd.org... why?  Freedom.
> 

> Conclusion:
> 
> Two functionality issues have been raised.  They will obviously be fixed
> (sooner rather than later).
> 
> Point:  It won't matter which you have installed on a functionality ground.
> Point:  It _will_ matter which you have installed on morality grounds.
> 
> I say call it ssh!

	In other words, OpenSSH holds the moral high ground, so it should
be allowed to pre-empt an existing package's name.  Honestly now, what is
wrong with doing what is normally done with new programs - giving a new
package (openssh) a new package name (openssh)?  The 'good reason' I see
being argued is "we have the morally better program and so therefore we
want to take over the name ssh in order to steal as many users from
f-secure's ssh as possible," which imho is not a good reason at all.

	Also, as pointed out by the configuration part of installing
OpenSSH, it doesn't support patented algorithms that users of ssh may be
using.  Therefore it is certainly not totally functionally equivilent to
f-secure's ssh.

	Mine you, I like OpenSSH.  I do think it's "better" than
f-secure's ssh by being less restricted.  I still don't see any compelling
reason for openssh to steal the name of an existing package.

	Chris Pimlott (IANADD)