On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 06:25:25AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 03:19:00AM +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > > I've just uploaded OpenSSH, the binary package for which I've called > > ``ssh'' so it will replace the non-free version in due course. > > > > I've also uploaded the old ssh, which is now called ssh-nonfree. > > Whoa, this is a horrible idea unless you can guarantee that the ssh > people are going to be automatically upgraded to completely duplicates > the functionality of the one they alread have. (AFAIK, it doesn't.) If > it's openssh, why isn't your package called openssh? I'd like to have a stab at this. ObHistory: The first patch I submitted to Damien Miller (the maintainer of OpenSSH for Linux) changed all the binary names to openssh*... I thought this was a good idea since it allowed for /etc/alternatives registration of the 'ssh' name if the ssh package were also similarly updated... easy enough. Damien Miller made the change because he obviously agreed with me. Theo DeRaadt promptly wrote him asking him to change the name back to ssh* based on the following reasoning: 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! -Dan -- "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Attachment:
pgpH5EP2Lxgeb.pgp
Description: PGP signature