cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml

Giorgos Keramidas keramida at
Sun Nov 12 19:02:50 UTC 2006

On 2006-11-13 05:27, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at> wrote:
>On Sun, 2006-Nov-12 12:14:31 +0100, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
>> SSH is the protocol, and ssh is the application/program (so
>> <application></application> or <command></command> according to the
>> situation).
> To be pedantic, the application is OpenSSH.

Well, right now, yes.  But it is "a member of the family of applications
which implement the `SSH' protocol".  I am not saying that this can
actually happen real soon now, but if OpenSSH doesn't work the way we
want it to work, it is possible that our <application>SSH</application>
in a few years will be <application>FooSSH</application>.

When the 'Open' part of 'OpenSSH' is important, it is obligatory that
we mention and make it stand out (if not for any other reason, as a form
of our appreciation for the work of the OpenSSH folks).  But when we
talk about the 'SSH' protocol in general, do we really have to do so?

- Giorgos

More information about the cvs-all mailing list