OpenWatcom C++ Compiler Code Finally Released

udif writes: "Almost 2 years after it was originally announced, the first drop of the OpenWatcom C++ source code is here. 18,000 files, 78MB uncompressed source code (about 28MB compressed). It's version 0.80 and is incomplete, but most of the code is here."

Comments

Good news for TeraTerm users

[Ashurbanipal]

Teraterm is an excellent open-source terminal emulator for Windows machines, which Robert O'Callahan has extended to incorporate SSH.

The two problems with TeraTerm are:
1) the weird license prohibits distributing any fixes to the core code (you can only distribute add-ons, which it supports). Luckily the core is not buggy, it's just got some areas where improvements could be made.
2) it reportedly compiles best under Watcom C/C++, which was (until now) a rare beasty.

Re:Good news for TeraTerm users

[bconway]

The BIGGER problem with Teraterm is that the SSH module doesn't and won't implement SSH v2. At this point SSH v1 is about as secure as telnet and should be disabled unless there is a reason that makes it absolutely necessary. I think it's safe to say that by now PuTTY, which progresses at an amazing rate, has claimed any market share that Termaterm had among the freeware SSH clients. It is an excellent tool.

Re:Good news for TeraTerm users

[0x0d0a]

Since GNU C++ is quite good when it comes to standards compliance

I'm not sure how it compares to other compilers, but g++ certainly has its share of nonstandard extensions. No compiler is innocent when it comes to being extension-free. :-)

void foo (int a) { int b[a]; }, for instance, really isn't kosher, but gcc/g++ allow it.

Re:Good news for TeraTerm users

[dvdeug]

Teraterm [vector.co.jp] is an excellent open-source terminal emulator for Windows machines [...] 1) the weird license prohibits distributing any fixes to the core code

Then it's not open-source, is it?

Re:TeraTerm .vs. PuTTY

[Ashurbanipal]

Glad to hear PuTTY is doing well; I've always liked the attitude of the creator (as expressed by his commentary - I don't know the guy). But I don't think Teraterm has lost much ground yet.

Teraterm is completely scriptable and has an embedded language for doing so. Putty doesn't. Teraterm has an extension interface (which is how SSH is supported) rather than being a code monolith (granted, with Teraterm's weird license and Putty's "fully open" source, this is not a big deal). Teraterm scripting is fairly well entrenched in many corporations and universities.

And as for you comments in RE: SSH v1 security I think you need to do a little more research; O'Callahan's SSH extension specifically disables those portions of SSH v1 that are known to be crackable, and in any case to state "SSH v1 is about as secure as telnet" is grossly incorrect - you can pick up telnet passwords with a packet sniffer, while hacking SSH is quite challenging.

Nonetheless I hope PuTTY continues to improve and eventually gets all the capabilities of TeraTerm. It's just not quite there yet.

Re:Open Watcom is not Open Source.

[greenius]

Take a look at section 2.2 which covers non-personal use of the code: It looks like an open-source license to me. The section you quote above just removes the need to make source code available if you only use it for your own personal use.

2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy Covered Code, provided that in each instance:

(a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the Source Code of the Covered Code;

(b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files and the date of any change;

(c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site);

(d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code; and

(e) the object code form of the Covered Code may be distributed under Your own license agreement, provided that such license agreement contains terms no less protective of Sybase and each Contributor than the terms of this License, and stating that any provisions which differ from this License are offered by You alone and not by any other party.