The name "Secsh" refers ONLY the NAME of the IETF Working Group. The protocol will still be called SSH. The dispute was over the protocol name not the IETF Working Group name.
From the charter on http://www.ietf.org:
"The goal of the working group is to update and standardize the popular SSH protocol. SSH provides support for secure remote login, secure file transfer, and secure TCP/IP and X11 forwardings. It can automatically encrypt, authenticate, and compress transmitted data."
Please read a little more closely before posting. Thanks.
If you are building a house, or re wiring the electrical system, look into getting an UPS for the entire house. Yes, it would be expensive, but think of the benefits.:-) You could have one UPS protected outlet in each room of the house.
I have read through the intro doc and glanced at the reference doc. It seems that MS did give some careful design to this language. The syntax for multi-dimensional arrays is fairly cool. The fact that it comes with no class libraries of its own is rather interesting.
I have a few objections, however. First, why make everything an object? I can understand making the primitive types objects, but I can see no reason to make literals objects as well. I would think that would introduce huge amounts of overhead.
Second, it seems wat too dangerous to have both GC and pointers. I personally prefer C++ pver Java, but have experience with both Java and the LISP family. I think that GC is a Good Idea, but if you are going to have it then direct memory addressing via pointers should not be allowed. IMHO, pointers and GC go together like oil and water.
Third, the "get" and "set" methods are too similar to the try/catch pair. This will only be cause for confusion.
Fourth, Two words "creeping featuritis." I see no need for five different accessability types. I think that public/private/protected are quite enough. The "internal" and "protected internal" accessability specifiers look to be almost totally redundant. I also see no real need for properties. The function of a property could be just as easily handled with a field within the class. There doesn't really seem to be a clear distinction between the two. Most of these new features, while nice are not of clear benefit.
Fifth, While the language has a nice syntax, ala Java, and has a couple of really nifty features, multi-dimensional arrays and indexers, it does not seem to offer anything to make it worthy of a switch. It is a cross between C++ and Java. It could be useful in places where those languages are often used, but even with its simplicity retraining and remplementation still costs money. It offers really tight integration with MS Windows platforms. Great, however, with the Anti-Trust problems and the admitted trend towards Web-based applications why should I consider yet another platform specific programming language? What does C# have to offer me?
C# is at least an interesting thought experiment on the part of MS. It is obviously still a beta spec. however. The designers went a little overboard when deciding what new features to add. It is also tied too closely to one platform for comfort. The designers seem to forget that MS does not the own the Web, or Web standards. Replace COM/DCOM with CORBA, or allow the use of both, and suddenly C# becomes much more viable. This is obviously meant to be a competitor to Java. I give them alot of credit for making it play nicely with VB and Visual C++, but it needs to play nicely with the rest of the Web, i.e. UNIX and MacOS, then it might actually be competitive.
In short. Trim the fat and make it more ubiquitious then it might be a winner.
There is one major feature of UNIX that has not yet been mentioned.
That feature is the community that has grown up in and around UNIX and the "UNIX-like" systems. Look at all the sharing that goes on between people in the community. We have open ideas as well as open source. Sharing and community has been a part of UNIX since AT&T first started giving it to universities. There is also the competition that is integral to the UNIX community. Yes, this does include the "holy wars" that break out occasionally. We have competition of APIs and new features. Need I mention the ongoing debate between GTK+ and QT, as well as that between GNOME and KDE. There is competition in the community and that keeps developers on their toes. It also continues the evolution of the system.
Where in the Windows community is there such a sense of openness, sharing, and competition.
When talking about what makes UNIX we must not forget the people involved. People make up the system just as much as the code base.
To me UNIX and the community surrrounding it are like a huge family. We may not like each other. We may not always agree, but there is something that brings us all together.
Lately it seems to me that people are forgetting the nature of our community. Yes, Red Hat is having its IPO. Get over it! The source is still there, it won't go away. If a few developers "sell out", if Red Hat trys to take linux the way of Winblows, someone else will come along and pick up where they left off. Also the development effort behind linux is probably the largest single development effort ever. Not everyone developing for linux is going to sell out at the first oppertunity like several people think. Yes, linux will change. It will still be free, it will still be developed openly, that can't be stopped, even if the GPL turns out to be worthless. The commercial influence will be one of many things that effects linux development. However, a few American companies aren't going to stop an international development effort. How are a few IPOs different than companies like IBM throwing their support behind linux anyway? Red Hat will be just another company making a buck off of someone else's free code. Maybe they will continue to support linux and GNOME, maybe they won't. Linux was here before Red Hat, and it will be here after Red Hat is gone. Companies will come and companies will go, the source is forever! Suck missed the mark with this one. It is all about evolution, not about the almighty buck.
Slashdot Mirror
...was it that this country stopped being "the land of the Free and the home of the Brave?"
Wasn't the DAV (Distributed Authoring and Versioning) protocol designed for uses such as this????
The name "Secsh" refers ONLY the NAME of the IETF Working Group. The protocol will still be called SSH. The dispute was over the protocol name not the IETF Working Group name.
From the charter on http://www.ietf.org:
"The goal of the working group is to update and standardize the popular SSH protocol. SSH provides support for secure remote login, secure file transfer, and secure TCP/IP and X11 forwardings. It can automatically encrypt, authenticate, and compress transmitted data."
Please read a little more closely before posting. Thanks.
If you are building a house, or re wiring the electrical system, look into getting an UPS for the entire house. Yes, it would be expensive, but think of the benefits. :-) You could have one UPS protected outlet in each room of the house.
I have read through the intro doc and glanced at the reference doc. It seems that MS did give some careful design to this language. The syntax for multi-dimensional arrays is fairly cool. The fact that it comes with no class libraries of its own is rather interesting.
I have a few objections, however.
First, why make everything an object? I can understand making the primitive types objects, but I can see no reason to make literals objects as well. I would think that would introduce huge amounts of overhead.
Second, it seems wat too dangerous to have both GC and pointers. I personally prefer C++ pver Java, but have experience with both Java and the LISP family. I think that GC is a Good Idea, but if you are going to have it then direct memory addressing via pointers should not be allowed. IMHO, pointers and GC go together like oil and water.
Third, the "get" and "set" methods are too similar to the try/catch pair. This will only be cause for confusion.
Fourth, Two words "creeping featuritis." I see no need for five different accessability types. I think that public/private/protected are quite enough. The "internal" and "protected internal" accessability specifiers look to be almost totally redundant. I also see no real need for properties. The function of a property could be just as easily handled with a field within the class. There doesn't really seem to be a clear distinction between the two. Most of these new features, while nice are not of clear benefit.
Fifth, While the language has a nice syntax, ala Java, and has a couple of really nifty features, multi-dimensional arrays and indexers, it does not seem to offer anything to make it worthy of a switch. It is a cross between C++ and Java. It could be useful in places where those languages are often used, but even with its simplicity retraining and remplementation still costs money. It offers really tight integration with MS Windows platforms. Great, however, with the Anti-Trust problems and the admitted trend towards Web-based applications why should I consider yet another platform specific programming language? What does C# have to offer me?
C# is at least an interesting thought experiment on the part of MS. It is obviously still a beta spec. however. The designers went a little overboard when deciding what new features to add. It is also tied too closely to one platform for comfort. The designers seem to forget that MS does not the own the Web, or Web standards. Replace COM/DCOM with CORBA, or allow the use of both, and suddenly C# becomes much more viable. This is obviously meant to be a competitor to Java. I give them alot of credit for making it play nicely with VB and Visual C++, but it needs to play nicely with the rest of the Web, i.e. UNIX and MacOS, then it might actually be competitive.
In short. Trim the fat and make it more ubiquitious then it might be a winner.
There is one major feature of UNIX that has not yet been mentioned.
:-)
That feature is the community that has grown up in and around UNIX and the "UNIX-like" systems. Look at all the sharing that goes on between people in the community. We have open ideas as well as open source. Sharing and community has been a part of UNIX since AT&T first started giving it to universities. There is also the competition that is integral to the UNIX community. Yes, this does include the "holy wars" that break out occasionally. We have competition of APIs and new features. Need I mention the ongoing debate between GTK+ and QT, as well as that between GNOME and KDE. There is competition in the community and that keeps developers on their toes. It also continues the evolution of the system.
Where in the Windows community is there such a sense of openness, sharing, and competition.
When talking about what makes UNIX we must not forget the people involved. People make up the system just as much as the code base.
To me UNIX and the community surrrounding it are like a huge family. We may not like each other. We may not always agree, but there is something that brings us all together.
Just my two bits.
Lately it seems to me that people are forgetting the nature of our community. Yes, Red Hat is having its IPO. Get over it! The source is still there, it won't go away. If a few developers "sell out", if Red Hat trys to take linux the way of Winblows, someone else will come along and pick up where they left off. Also the development effort behind linux is probably the largest single development effort ever. Not everyone developing for linux is going to sell out at the first oppertunity like several people think. Yes, linux will change. It will still be free, it will still be developed openly, that can't be stopped, even if the GPL turns out to be worthless. The commercial influence will be one of many things that effects linux development. However, a few American companies aren't going to stop an international development effort. How are a few IPOs different than companies like IBM throwing their support behind linux anyway? Red Hat will be just another company making a buck off of someone else's free code. Maybe they will continue to support linux and GNOME, maybe they won't. Linux was here before Red Hat, and it will be here after Red Hat is gone. Companies will come and companies will go, the source is forever! Suck missed the mark with this one. It is all about evolution, not about the almighty buck.
-LordNite