Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PuTTY 0.61 Released

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the what's-old-is-new dept.

Open Source 184

drmacinyasha writes "Simon Tatham announced Tuesday the official release of PuTTY 0.61 after four years of development. It brings a number of bug fixes and improvements, such as GSSAPI SSH-2 authentication, significantly faster SSH key exchanges, and even support for Windows 7's jump lists. Downloads are available from the project's homepage."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Link (1, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746344)

...and still no clickable links.

Re:Link (3, Informative)

bamf (212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746372)

Use Kitty [9bis.com] instead. Having said that, clickable links don't always work correctly.

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746440)

I actually wrote a ghastly patch to the nutty "urlhack" that western putty variants use, that fixes things like wide unicode shifting the url X letters to the left. URL underlining still underlines the wrong part of the screen, and non-ascii characters in the URL filter into gibberish, but at least now urls work after someone has copy-pasted chinese or japanese to the channel (I'm using putty for irssi).

There is a chinese closed-source putty variant with proper, bug-free clickable urls and improved CJK handling, whose name escapes me at this time. The interface is is in chinese and there's a heavy emphasis on GB/BIG5 encodings, making it rather unusable for everyone who is not chinese.

Re:Link (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746492)

The chinese variant is called PieTTy.

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746624)

another variant: http://ice.hotmint.com/putty/
Direct2D/DirectWrite rendering version: http://ice.hotmint.com/putty/d2ddw.html

han unification - epic win! (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747342)

i knew all those unicode folks were right back in the 90s.

who cares if you smash japanese, chinese, and korean into one gigantic encoding? im sure they will all still adopt it!

10 years later, sure, some people still use GB Big5

just a few stragglers obviously!

Re:Link (3, Interesting)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746806)

Use Kitty instead. Having said that, clickable links don't always work correctly.

That is, unfortunately, true of pretty much everything that Kitty provides as a value-add for Putty. Everything almost, but not quite, works. I really, really wanted to like Kitty (it adds a ton of neat features to Putty), but after about two weeks of frustration I went back to Putty.

Re:Link (0)

DemoLiter3 (704469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746738)

And still no analog to ssh's "-D" option

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746844)

There was last time I used windows.
Go to the tunnels configuration, and use the Dynamic option.

Or search for 'putty socks' :-)

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746836)

...and still no clickable links.

It's open source. You're free to contribute, rather than whin about it on slashdot.

Re:Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748190)

Is it just me or is the release signed with the less secure snapshot key?

Four years (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746356)

Shouldn't that make it PuTTY 12.9.9 at least?

Re:Four years (3, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746710)

That's what I thought. Wasn't PuTTY release-ready 10 years ago? At this pace, by the time they make an official 1.0 release, it's already obsolete.

Re:Four years (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748172)

1.0 is when the architect (-slash-developer) thinks it does everything he originally set out for the application to do. Increments are fixes and minor features. Major version increment is when the architect thinks it does everything he set out for that version.

THAT is how version numbers work, not "oooh, the competition is already up to 9.0 and we're still 3.6, let's bump it up with a few bugfix releases".

0.x does not mean it's going to be obsolete or even unstable, just that it doesn't do everything it was meant to, yet.

Re:Four years (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746720)

It is PuTTY after all, not Firefox or Chrome. It's not a case of hype-driven development. It's about providing the best product possible, rather than goofing around with hyperinflated version numbers.

I liken it to the quiet employee who doesn't dress with the fanciest clothes nor boast constantly, but rather gets his work done efficiently and effectively. It turns out he has an absolutely massive penis, like in excess of 12" long. When hung like that, one doesn't need to act powerful, like all of the managers and executives with micropenises. When one has a pecker that huge, one inherently is powerful.

Re:Four years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747602)

I find it quite disturbing that you base a man's worth on the size of reproductive organ. Why the penis obsession? Freud would have a field day with you.

Re:Four years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747752)

IMO Freud deserves getting a huge dick up his arse for all the crap and bullshit he's spouted.

Re:Four years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747756)

Thanks, but it's only 11 inches (if you measure from the top -- none of that "measure from the asshole" bullshit).

Who uses standard PuTTY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746358)

Tell me when PuTTYTray gets an update instead.

PowerShell Integration? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746370)

I'd love to get PuTTY ssh/scp functions integrated directly into PowerShell. Instead of a separate PuTTY GUI, just use PowerShell as the shell to connect to remote hosts with PuTTY, and file transfer with scp.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746386)

Why not just install OpenSSH? Then you can run the ssh and scp command-line tools as normal. If you install Cygwin, they're probably there already. The advantage of PuTTY is that it includes its own terminal emulator, which is important because the Windows one sucks (or, did when I last used Windows - Win2K - it may be better now).

Re:PowerShell Integration? (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746416)

The thing about Putty is that it's a self contained executable, which means you can throw it on the flash drive that's already hanging from your key ring. No need for cygwin or whatever. Nothing to install on the host system.

Some of us have full Linux distributions there and various Windows tools for fixing busted Windows machines.

Where's yours?

--
BMO

Re:PowerShell Integration? (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746450)

Some of us have full Linux distributions there and various Windows tools for fixing busted Windows machines. Where's yours?

I haven't used Windows since 2003, so I have no more need for a flash drive for fixing them than I have a need for a smithy to make replacement horse shoes.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746588)

Do you have a car powered by your own sense of self-satisfaction, too?

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746632)

Self satisfaction because I don't keep tools for maintaining technology that I don't use lying around? If that's your benchmark for self satisfaction, you must lead a very tedious life.

I also don't have an Amiga boot floppy a System/z recovery console lying around. Nor to I expect everyone else to keep recovery tools for the operating systems that I use handy.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746968)

But other people might need such tools - so why dictate to them how they should do things? I'm trying to be nice about this, but you're coming across as kinda arrogant...

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747146)

I replied to someone who said 'where's your?' implying that everyone should have such a set of tools. I don't have one, because I have no need of one. I also don't have a socket wrench set, nor a torx screwdriver set. Some people have need for these tools. The assumption that everyone does is arrogant, and that is what I was replying to.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746636)

Protip: Some of us on here actually make our living doing computer stuff, like repairs. WHODATHUNKIT?!

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746664)

And therefore everyone should have Windows recovery tools? Some of us here actually make our living doing computer stuff, like writing software. Therefore we have VM images containing multiple compilers - where's yours?

Re:PowerShell Integration? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746740)

Your comments are very rude.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747166)

I don't find that. To be fair, he didn't start it, he was asked a sort of obnoxious question and responded reasonably.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747186)

I'm rude because I don't think that everyone should be required to have a set of recovery tools for the operating system that the person I replied to uses?

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747302)

Some of us have full Linux distributions there and various Windows tools for fixing busted Windows machines. Where's yours?

I haven't used Windows since 2003, so I have no more need for a flash drive for fixing them than I have a need for a smithy to make replacement horse shoes.

Funny - I know loads of people who still need a "smithy to make replacement horseshoes"

Re:PowerShell Integration? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747574)

And, if they do, then I'd expect them to have one - or, at least, the use of one. I wouldn't expect them to go around expecting everyone else to have one too.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747750)

Well aren't you just special?

Re:PowerShell Integration? (2)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746482)

That is how I do still use PuTTY from time to time. When it's not your machine, it's polite to only use PuTTY rather than install anything, and if you don't have admin, it's the only option. But I don't often do this, I use cygwin+mintty as preference, like on my work machine.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746468)

I find the PuTTY terminal isn't much better. Mintty is the best I found for Windows. Shame it's not like Guake, but stuff I found to do that on Windows hasn't been functional.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746622)

Do you realize that mintty is basically the PuTTY terminal with a few improvements? It's the same code.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746966)

Then those improvements make all the difference. Plus, you can use it to use normal ssh, normally.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

yomammamia (1916736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746500)

I greatly respect what cygwin is and does but ultimately it's unpleasantly bloated when you only need a handful of ported programs. After using the putty terminal editor I can't touch cygwins. When using cygwin I set up the sshd service so that I can use putty for it on localhost instead.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746672)

. After using the putty terminal editor I can't touch cygwins. When using cygwin I set up the sshd service so that I can use putty for it on localhost instead.

What's wrong with Cygwin's mintty?

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746550)

I like MobaXterm better than PuTTY (after having used PuTTY for many years!)

http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746846)

MobaXterm uses mintty as its terminal, which in turn is based on parts of PuTTY, so in a way you're still using PuTTY. :)

because some of us have to work with approved apps (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746604)

That's why...

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746864)

When I was still using Windows as a desktop client I liked the way Putty gave me a quite good ssh experience. It's worse than openssh but it was the best one you could get on Windows. I'm still recommending it to people that work on Windows. It's much easier for them that using Cygwin or migrating to Linux as I did.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746902)

There are benefits to a native PowerShell module, like discoverability, tab-complete, strong-typing, support for common and preference parameters, session variables (e.g.: "trust this SSH key for this session only"), object-oriented result sets, and a bunch of other things.

The elegant way to support SCP in PowerShell would be to write a PowerShell virtual filesystem provider [microsoft.com] . This would allow scripts to use all of the built-in PowerShell commands on the remote filesystem as if they were normal mounted drives. For example, dir, copy, and del, would all work. It's much easier writing a PowerShell provider than a full filesystem driver, so even for a complex user-mode protocol like SCP it wouldn't be too difficult. Similarly, the SSH key store could be treated like a virtual drive too, just like the built-in Certificate provider [microsoft.com] .

Alternatively, the even simpler solution is to do something like what VMware did for copying files onto ESXi servers, like Copy-VMGuestFile [vmware.com] , and Copy-DatastoreItem [vmware.com] .

SSH wouldn't be as easy to wrap, but I suppose it would be possible to create a set of commands such as Invoke-SSHCommand, Enter-SSHSession, and the like, with analogy to Invoke-Command [microsoft.com] and Enter-PSSession [microsoft.com] . The problem is that PowerShell doesn't really have a built-in concept of a non-PowerShell session, so a bit of wheel-reinventing would be needed to get a complete set of commands.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746908)

Cygwin + openSSH + minTTY is an utter godsend on windows; minTTY is the best terminal emulator I've used on windows by a long shot and IMHO knocks the one included with putty into a cocked hat.

Why MS chose to use the same god-awful terminal for their all-singing all-dancing powershell is beyond me.

http://code.google.com/p/mintty/ [google.com]

Re:PowerShell Integration? (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746976)

Here here!

I didn't know Powershell still uses the crap default terminal!
Haven't gone near it as I'm happy with cygwin and MinTTY, plus I try and avoid Windows specific stuff.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (2)

benjymouse (756774) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747606)

Here here!
I didn't know Powershell still uses the crap default terminal!

PowerShell is a "hostable" shell, meaning that it can be integrated into a host (.NET) application and directly share in-memory objects and hook into the host user interface. PowerShell comes with two apps for hosting it: The PowerShell console and the ISE (Integrated scripting environment). What you are referring to as the "crap default terminal" is probably the PowerShell console. I don't know why it is crap, though. If you are thinking lack of SSH, PowerShell has a much more elegant and hassle-free way to remotely execute scripts, commands, functions and even remote jobs and events.

Re:PowerShell Integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746486)

Aren't plink and pscp what you're looking for?

Thanks! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746376)

The authors would be millionaires if they charged for this. I see this software used many many places, so thanks.

Re:Thanks! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746422)

... or it could be so frequently used just because it's free and open? There are plenty of commercial SSH alternatives if you want those.

Re:Thanks! (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747564)

Yeah, there are some things that products like SecureCRT just do better then PuTTY. Like a tabbed interface, better session management, the ability to do XMODEM/ZMODEM file transfers without switching over to WinSCP. Better logging capability, better interface for working with session profiles, etc.

I use both PuTTY and SecureCRT, but spend 90% of my time in SecureCRT.

(Note - I haven't yet looked at what PuTTY 0.61 improved upon.)

Re:Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747626)

My machine here at work has two terminal emulators, PuTTY (hanging around in my user directory) and Attachmate.

One of these two programs is several hundred megs, crashes when you try to change printers during a telnet session, and requires you REBOOT WINDOWS on occasion if it locks up (WinXP, mandated). ...I'll stick with the other, regardless of cost.

Re:Thanks! (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746570)

The authors would be millionaires if they charged for this. I see this software used many many places, so thanks.

I use PuTTY every day. So thanks as well.

Re:Thanks! (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747268)

Or even offered a donation link! I don't use it much any more (most machines I'm on are running linux or solaris)... but I'd donate just because of how much I used it in the past!

I love how low-key the whole thing is. It's like, a hugely ubiquitous tool that's been around (and still works) for like a decade... and it doesn't even have it's own domain! Any other project with even half the success of putty would be selling tshirts and cups and have spots at conventions by now.

I have no problem try this (3, Informative)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746390)

Re:I have no problem try this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746426)

I believe it was a reference to a feature some like to see - the terminal making anything that looks like a URL clickable. Personally I think this is out of the purview of a terminal, but whatever.

Re:I have no problem try this (-1, Offtopic)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747642)

Personally I think this is out of the purview of a terminal, but whatever.

Within its 'purview'? Where do you think you are, some fucking regency costume drama? This is a terminal emulator, not some fucking Jane fucking Austen novel! Allow me to pop a jaunty little bonnet on your purview and ram it up your router with a lubricated ethernet cable!

(To be said in a Scottish accent).

Re:I have no problem try this (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748124)

You're a fucking dumb idiot, and you and people like you should be exterminated forthwith.

Not only do you hold society back by bullying and ridiculing people for being cleverer than you,people like you skew the averages so that genuinely average people are prevented from achieving their potential by our stupid "lowest common denominator" and "learn by rote, don't THINK!!!" education systems.

I realised that Earth wasn't the planet for me the first time I was bullied at primary school for being "too intelligent" or "too serious".

Then I left school and discovered that employers have the same attitude to critical thinking and intelligence. And people wonder why I'm a bitter trolling bitch???

Re:I have no problem try this (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747508)

The whole site seems to be slashdotted at the moment. Putty must have a pretty impressive user base...

Re:I have no problem try this (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748066)

Putty's user base: "All of them."

Self-deprecating version numbers are the suck (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746412)

Ok, we get it: you're not comfortable saying it's "release quality" yet. But *%@# it's been 4 years since you bothered to release an update; that means it's pretty darn stable. Go ahead and take the plunge and call it 1.0. Qualify that as BETA or something if you have to, but please stop calling it 0.xx.

Re:Self-deprecating version numbers are the suck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746432)

Maybe they should join the versioning wars and just release version 12 already... aka are you retarded or something?

Re:Self-deprecating version numbers are the suck (5, Interesting)

CrazyBusError (530694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747050)

I believe there are other reasons for not going to version 1.

Hopefully the esteemed Mr Tatham won't mind if I quote him directly, but in 2007 he wrote this about why puTTY wasn't version 1 yet:

But that's not primarily what's holding back a 1.0 release. The real thing I want to do first is to sort out the data storage: there are quite a few features on the wish list which would require a revamp of that, such as

- ability to store some settings in HKEY_CURRENT_USER and others in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, so that a sysadmin could set up some default saved sessions and a default host key cache which would then be the starting point for each user's personal configuration

- inheritable saved sessions (so that when I change, say, my font preference in Default Settings it automatically propagates to all my other sessions _except_ those in which I've specifically asked for a non-default font)

- storing configuration in a disk file as an alternative to the registry (so that people can carry around PuTTY plus their config file on a USB stick)

- ability to configure all PuTTY's options from the command line (rather than having to do a lot of them by the cumbersome method of creating a saved session and using -load).

Now I'm not saying I want to have _implemented_ all those features before 1.0, but I want to have made a commitment to a data storage format which is capable of supporting them. Currently PuTTY's data storage only tries to be upward- compatible, meaning that you can upgrade PuTTY and it'll still work with your old settings. Use an older PuTTY with newer settings, and you're on your own. My goal is that within the 1.0 series, the data storage should be compatible in _both_ directions. (Not because I anticipate people deliberately downgrading PuTTY, although it's been known occasionally, but because I can easily imagine people using different versions on two machines which happen to be sharing a network-stored configuration.)

I use mintty and cygwin instead (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746452)

Much nicer console and gives just standard command line ssh, which is all I want/need. I stopped using Putty years ago...
During the heavy snow in the UK, I was regularly checking how bad it was at home with:

ssh user@server "ffmpeg -r 15 -f video4linux2 -i /dev/video0 -f matroska pipe:" | ffplay pipe

Which is exactly what I would have done if my work machine was Linux not Windows. Guess it depends what you want a ssh client on Windows for.

Re:I use mintty and cygwin instead (2, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747042)

Cygwin is an horrendous suite to work with. Really. Just go look at how you're supposed to guarantee what version of the Cygwin DLL your applications end up using (Hint: Delete any cygwin1.dll that's not in the System directory and hope-to-god that's the most up-to-date). It can't even co-reside with itself so the second you load up a Cygwin app it's a gamble as to what version of the DLL it will find / use and whether it's even compatible any more, and what it'll do to applications you run later on. I take it that you don't do a lot of development with Cygwin compilers because it's a minefield, and after a while, you give anything to remove that Cygwin dependency (which is basically why MinGW exists, for instance).

Also, the tools are horrendously slow. I have a Cygwin development environment that I've carried for a long while and it's stupidly slow when it comes to anything half-decent, anything that forks, etc. not to mention compatibility issues every time you have to move to a new Windows version, etc.

PuTTY, in comparison, is a single file, no dependencies, works fine and everywhere and does 99% of what you want (the example you show is the most esoteric and pointless thing I could think of to show off a console, and relies mainly on the fact that you have an ffplay that can read from pipes on Windows - nothing to do with the console, as such).

A console is a shell client. That's it. It doesn't need to integrate with my current OS / desktop, or form perfect pipes, or do anything more than necessary - it just needs to show me a remote shell on another computer so I can issue commands and see responses. PuTTY does that and does it brilliantly - so much so that I've ditched lots of serial-port comms utilities in favour of PuTTY instead because it also support just raw comms. It's also so incredibly tiny and portable (unlike your Cygwin installation) that I can literally carry it everywhere.

The only thing I *hate* about PuTTY is that all the messing about with keys should really be simplified a lot without having to resort to extra utilities and third-party addons.

nice (4, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746454)

putty makes the world work. I spend 90% of my day in putty... ssh-ed from a Windows box to various Linux boxes. It has never crashed.
I also love the download page where you can grab just the .exe by http or ftp. If only everything else could be so perfect and simple.

Re:nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746520)

It has never crashed.

How lucky can you get? When I used it, I crashed it on a daily basis. It was rather easy to screw up the whole window just by playing with a terminal.

Re:nice (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746558)

0.60 with heavy tunneling and/or X11 forwarding crashes like a beast.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746640)

Why not just install linux on you own box and run the various windows programs you might need in wine?

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746684)

Completely agree, putty is my life! ;)

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746870)

PuTTY may very well be the most important/used windows software, at least for us slashdot-reading geeks...
I don't often log into win

Re:nice (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747026)

as opposed to Ubuntu 11.04, which can't hold an ssh session for 10 minutes before the entire term window goes to hell and never comes back....

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747130)

You might find the OpenSSH FAQ [openssh.org] helpful.

Re:nice (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748162)

No, it's not helpful. It's not inactivity that causes ssh to freeze here, it's an active session, I am typing in it, all of a sudden BAM, it's gone. The screen is there, but there is no activity, no way to terminate, suspend or exit shell, nothing, the entire window has to be killed.

Re:nice (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747152)

Get out of unity ASAP.
Choose Classic or Classic w/o Effects.

Re:nice (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748108)

What are you talking about? Dumped unity the moment it appeared, it's classic without effects, and that's what it does.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748182)

Ubuntu 11.04

I think I found your problem.

Re:nice (1)

sparkz (146432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747286)

I hugely prefer to work in GNOME, but when forced to use MS Windows, PuTTY is the only thing that makes it bearable!

Tabs ... (1)

Jaro (4361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746518)

I still wish PuTTY would have native tabs without the need for the Connection Manager [puttycm.free.fr] which is way to bloated for my need (tabs). I just need PuTTY, Pageant and then automatic tabbing when there is another PuTTY window already open.

Re:Tabs ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746848)

Well, if you don't mind starting a few connections from a specific linux box, there is always 'screen' that does exactly that. Plus, you get to have 'screen -D -RR' to reconnect to a lost session, tabs and all.

Simon Tatham is my hero (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746606)

I don't always run Windows, but when I do, I prefer PuTTY

PuTTY Tray FTW. (1)

Kwpolska (2026252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746612)

I like PuTTY Tray more. Can someone tell me when it will be updated?

Re:PuTTY Tray FTW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746662)

It will be updated in 6 years.

Re:PuTTY Tray FTW. (4, Informative)

Any Web Loco (555458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746668)

Doesn't look like it will be sadly. From the download page:

Please note: I have decided to stop development of the PuTTY Tray patch, and I have no plans to resume it at any point in the future.

Win 7 Support (1)

frap (1806452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746660)

Apparently it has Win 7 support, especially for jumplists, but I don't see it...

Puzzles (5, Insightful)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746680)

And for those people who don't have the intellectual desire to tinker away at a shell, Simon Tatham has a few puzzles for you:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/ [greenend.org.uk]

I accept no responsibility for loss of work months due to the use of these puzzles.

People who hate Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746694)

I see many people who don't use Windows questioning why you would use PuTTY.

It isn't only "PuTTY for Windows", OpenBSD has it available as a port and also a precompiled package.

Surely the Linux crowd can package it too?

I like Cygwin better (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746854)

Why would they bother to port/package it?

I've watched the Windows users at work deal with it, and it looks like it's a royal pain, compared to Cygwin+Cygwin-X that I use on the same platforms. It doesn't seem like it's very well integrated into the Windows clipboard, and, at least the version they're using doesn't work with the keyboard shortcuts neatly, either. Maybe they just don't use it well.

For example, with Cygwin, I can highlight and paste with a middle-click, just as on X-Windows, if I'm using an xterm or other X client application; the highlight also populates the Windows clipboard, so I can paste into an Outlook email, for example, using either the Windows application menu edit-paste or the standard keyboard shortcut (CTRL-v).

On a Linux box, I have at least one telnet client, an ssh client (and server, if I want it), various FTP client choices, and xterms, so what would PuTTY bring to the table? 'Bout the only thing missing on most modern distributions is a default xterm readily available in the menu-customization system.

exe different version than installer (1)

creativeHavoc (1052138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746728)

Downloading the exe for putty got me v .60 - i then went back to look closer... the installer got me .61 but I didnt get any options on what all i wanted to install so I got everything.

Scripting (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746972)

I love PuTTY and I use it frequently. That being said, I wish it supported a scripting language. I used to sometimes use Tera Term for its built-in macro scripting language and always wondered why PuTTY never implemented such a feature.

Tabbed Putty? (1)

Warlord88 (1065794) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747270)

My search for a good version of tabbed putty still continues. Currently I'm using Superputty [google.com] . Unfortunately, it is far from a finished product - the main problems being lack of proper keyboard shortcuts and non-regain of focus on maximize/minimize.

If someone knows a good tabbed putty version, my life would become a lot simpler.

Re:Tabbed Putty? (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747386)

I have not tried it myself, but I've read that a lot of people use PuTTY Connection Manager:

http://puttycm.free.fr/cms/ [puttycm.free.fr]

It is only for Windows and requires .Net framework to be installed, which turns some people off.

Re:Tabbed Putty? (1)

Warlord88 (1065794) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747728)

I've tried it myself and found it to be horribly buggy/unstable! At least I can work on Superputty without worrying that it'll crash any moment.

Re:Tabbed Putty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747906)

Forget the mouse and the tabs and just pick a server to launch screen [gnu.org] and go from there. This way I can close my laptop, drive home, vpn back in and get all my sessions exactly how they were. I do something similar with RDP to manage Windows systems. This also means I can survive a network blip and not lose my place (my data center is stable and is remote from my office which has terrible LAN reliability and power issues).

Why it's called "putty"... (1)

pinballer (655113) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747408)

....because Windows is useless without it. Someone once told me that but I never did try to work out where that came from.

Monty Python's Flying PuTTY (1)

axondump (2369670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747620)

Oh, I guess I'll have to update the last version of Johann GambolPuTTY [sourceforge.net] then!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?