Re: ssh.com on debian woody/i386
On 2005-04-26 @ 19:18:43 (week 17) Sean Davis wrote:
> > Did you visit their site recently? Read the link below [1]. They changed
> > their policy [2].
>
> I did not know that. Thank you for pointing it out, looks like I'm sticking
> with OpenSSH.
You're welcome.
> > And our experience with incompatible scp implementations (with ssh1
> > disabled) wasn't a happy one either.
>
> True. Converting openssh keys back and forth from ssh.com format can be a
> pain also.
There's that. But there's also the problem of different implementations
of the scp command. You can read more about that on
http://www.snailbook.com/faq/scp-ossh-to-ssh2.auto.html
This can be a real pain in the *** when you have to serve both the
SSH.com and openSSH clients.
> I also prefer OSS, but I am not so foolish to think that there is no
> commercial software out there that might be better than it's open-source
> cousin. (Not accusing you of being foolish; but I've met some people who
> won't touch commercial software for ANY reason)
No offence taken. Like I said RMS is a bit on the fanatical side with
this issue. I tend to be a bit more pragmatic. However I have seen
enough hairy situations with licences to feel that he does have a point.
The BitKeeper thing did prove his point (up to a point). The license
change of Tectia (the new name for the SSH.com products) does too. On
the other hand I have to admit that I do buy commercial software [1]
when it's worth the cost (both financial and in freedom).
[1] I bought Komodo recently hoping it will help me to manage a large
project I took over consisting of a lot of perl scripts and modules.
Although I still use vim to edit the files, Komodo does make it a
bit easier to keep a good overview of things.
Grx HdV
Reply to: