niclas.zeising at gmail.com
Tue Nov 14 18:00:03 UTC 2006
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2006-11-12 22:12, Niclas Zeising <niclas.zeising at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> On 2006-11-13 05:27, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> 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
>>>> 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?
>> This chapter, as far as I can tell, talks about SSH in general, as
>> Giorgos stated. There is another chapter talking about OpenSSH in
>> particular, and in that chapter OpenSSH is used when talking about the
> Excellent! I'm glad we got that straight :)
> So, Niclas, just to get this thread directed towards a more productive
> closure, in a previous post of yours you wrote:
> % Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:22:53 +0100
> % From: Niclas Zeising <lothrandil at n00b.apagnu.se>
> % Subject: Re: cvs commit:
> % doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml
> % To: Marc Fonvieille <blackend at freebsd.org>
> % CC: Johann Kois <jkois at freebsd.org>, doc-committers at freebsd.org,
> % Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at freebsd.org>, cvs-all at freebsd.org,
> % cvs-doc at freebsd.org
> % Okay. I'll do an overhaul of the security chapter and see if I can make
> % some sort of progress regarding consistency between, SSH, ssh and so on,
> % using SSH for the protocol, and <application>ssh</application> or
> % <command>ssh</command> depending on the situation.
> Should we expect a patch for the <application>SSH</application> stuff?
> If you are going to work on this, it would be nice to know, so we avoid
> duplication of work by 2 or more prople for the same relatively trivial
> - Giorgos
It's already done, docs/105456.
I thought it was clear that I was going to do it, sorry for the confusion.
More information about the cvs-all