KiTTY – A fork of PuTTY 0.67 with many additional features
9bis.net
9bis.net
Bottom line, set your workflow on Linux or at least bash for Windows if you manage or plan to manage many machines.
https://github.com/dlech/KeeAgent
About the attitude of the PuTTY authors: I have read similiar stories already.
Configured mintty with solarized colors, source code pro font and it's as good as it gets on Windows.
I'd like to check/fix PuTTYTray, although I currently use a nightly version of PuTTY for ECDSA support.
I'm trying out Windows again, and the whole environment seems to have massively improved in the four years since I last played with it: after installing bash for windows and docker for windows and openssh through scoop, I can open a command line and use native ssh, or type "bash" and use the usual Linux version, or "docker run ..." and use whatever I'm used to there. Given all these great options, it's not clear to me why anyone would go back to a separate GUI tool?
You're clearly a Linux person. Or at least a command line person. I am too. Quite a few programmers at my work have never used anything but Windows and barely touch any servers. So they don't really use the command line at all, ever.
They also insist on using graphical clients for Git. This is of course horribly inefficient and leads to plenty of problems (mostly due to their choice of the Eclipse Git Client, which seems to have a lot of bugs). But they think the command line is scary and too difficult to understand.
So, my point is, there are a lot of people who have used GUIs their entire life and are used to be able to figure things out by just staring at the GUI and spending 30 minutes aimlessly clicking about. Then when they use a CLI program they have no idea what to do, and get frustrated. Because they're not used to RTFM.
Look at the Session GUI. You can click on a list of saved sessions, but they won't show up in the input configs at the top till you press load, but if you doubleclick on them a new session is started.
Of all things, I don't think that is a bad design choice. I would get really annoyed if all the changes I've made in the different tabs were to disappear because I happened to click on one of the already existing sessions in the list. Perhaps because I'd want to update it.
I've been using it for over five years and I can't imagine what it could possibly be missing...
https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/
We've been using it for 2+ years at this point and glad we stuck with Mercurial.
I have to say, there's a certain irony in that GitLab uses Hg and not Git...
1. Check out Gogs (Github clone written in Go). Gitlab is quite heavy, we would've needed an extra machine to run it, so we tried Gogs and absolutely love it.
2. Using the command line is actually quite helpful the get in the "git mindset" (and workflow). Give it a try and you won't want to go back to gui tools.
3. Assuming you are on Windows, check out Github Desktop and Tower.
A shame, because otherwise the product looks good and has a good workflow.
For any commit/merge/push/pull standard maneuvers (probably 99.8%) I do, Tower is faster. Anything 'complicated' and I'm using git in the command line.
But I do agree about the Eclipse git client. It's the worst client I think I have ever seen. Every dev I know that relies on it regularly finds away to bork their local version or to screw up the central repository on a regular enough basis that it's not even a surprise anymore.
>They also insist on using graphical clients for Git. This is of course horribly inefficient and leads to plenty of problems (mostly due to their choice of the Eclipse Git Client, which seems to have a lot of bugs). But they think the command line is scary and too difficult to understand.
I still find it hard to believe that there are people like this out there.
You're a programmer! You write in programming languages all day, but you think at a new language, a relatively simple one used by thousands of people who aren't professional programmers, will be hard to learn.
I guess Steve Yegge was right. Programmers really do hate learning new languages.
I can't stand IDEs and frameworks because I hate having things done magically for me, partly because "magic" tends to break, and partly because I have a compulsive need to know how things work, if not deeply than at least superficially. I can't stand Java and languages like it because the absurd amount of boilerplate they generate seems to require such things, it's generally considered a fool's errand to write Java outside of an irritatingly complex IDE, and it seems to attract complex frameworks like a pile of crap attracts flies.
An IDE dependance (not preference, dependance: you're terrified of going outside of an IDE) doesn't just imply a distaste for CLIs, it often implies a desire to have things done for you, for "magic."
Do these sorts of people rewrite software, even if there's a convenient framework, just because? Do they think about cache misses (even if they don't do anything about them)? Do they learn new languages and concepts on a whim, because, "I thought it seemed cool?"
Thinking like these people doesn't just mean ignoring years of knowledge, but also actually pretending that a deeply ingrained part of who I am, something I though near intrinsic to programmers (because what other sort of person would do this sort of thing voluntarily?).
I actually can't, and that kind of amazes me.
That's not all that I know, not by a long shot, but I know that what I know is a tiny drop in the ocean of what I don't.
It's just baffling that there are people out there, likely older than me, who aren't actively trying to learn more. I mean, if you don't like computing enough to be motivated to learn more about it, why are you in the industry?
Still, I am convinced that, for advanced users, CLI wins over GUI. Even outside of the sw dev world, I see many professionals (e.g. graphic designers) who, in order to increase productivity, learn so many keyboard shortcuts that they end up using their keyboard more than their mouse: in my mind, I see that as a "CLI-zation" of the GUI.
Another point is ease of sharing: with CLI-based work-flows, you can just write down everything in the company wiki, all is just text. The thought of having to take screenshots in order to describe a work-flow to a colleague (vs. just writing down commands) drives me mad.
For me it's the easily clickable URLs. Copying and pasting URLs in other CLI-environments on Windows is cumbersome at best.
If I were just transferring files or editing files remotely I would use WinSCP which has a much better interface than PuTTY. I can't stand browsing files through the commandline on any OS... It's so tedious.
Also, you can operate the entirety of Windows with just the keyboard. You don't even have to pick up the mouse at all. The Tab and Enter keys get you pretty far without even having to know anything special.
No matter what interface you use there is always going to be an initial learning curve, some people prefer the CLI and others prefer the GUI, there's nothing wrong with that.
Case in point, right now I'm an undergrad TA'ing a C++ class. One thing that has been very useful when helping students out is compiling their code under Clang and GCC, which for me, is as simple as just changing `CXX` when I cmake their stuff. But hell if I have any idea how to change that easily in their IDE. It's also easier for me to redirect compiler output somewhere so I can look at it, and for maybe everything except step-by-step debugging, I have pretty much no need for the IDE.
Granted, GUIs can offer a lot of advantages - if I'm moving data between two different computers, I will almost definitely use WinSCP, unless it's someone I need to script, simply because the interface is clean, straightforward, and I've never yet had to worry about side effects. And obviously, I use a browser like Chrome and an email client like Gmail. But there are some things where the GUI just adds way too much complexity that I don't ever want to deal with.
>Case in point, right now I'm an undergrad TA'ing a C++ class. One thing that has been very useful when helping students out is compiling their code under Clang and GCC, which for me, is as simple as just changing `CXX` when I cmake their stuff. But hell if I have any idea how to change that easily in their IDE. It's also easier for me to redirect compiler output somewhere so I can look at it, and for maybe everything except step-by-step debugging, I have pretty much no need for the IDE.
Probably because the GUI tools you're using are CLI first, with GUI frontends being a second thought? On Visual Studio (which is GUI first), changing a compiler is as simple as going to project properties and clicking the toolchain dropdown menu.
The command line gives you both a larger learning curve (base) and greater capabilities (peak). It's not possible to put all the options from the command line into a GUI, because piping allows you to stitch unrelated commands together to form, on the fly, entirely new "programs."
for f in *.gz; do gunzip < "${f}" | tr '(' '\n' | awk -F "'" '{print $2}' | grep -v -e '\.foo$' -e '\.bar$' > "out_${f}.txt"; echo "${f}"; done
The above command is pretty simple (and could possibly be improved, as many awk+grep combos can be), but I can't picture it in a GUI. Additionally, the above command will still work 10 years from now, whereas the GUI will have changed. So from that perspective, a CLI user who has already reached "base camp" will have a lower learning curve than a GUI user, who will continually have to re-learn new interfaces.
Something that could easily be solved with a bit of copy-paste and regex usage in the right text IDE. I'd argue that you're comparing a seasoned professional at the CLI with an inexperienced IDE-user. It's always assumed that IDE and non-CLI users are basic and not at all adept at performing their tasks in efficient ways.
There's a reason why IDEs always seem to have a built-in terminal, and why those which didn't at first seem to grow terminal-like capabilities, like VS Code's command palette.
I don't know about you guys, but the equivalent of this command top is painful to clickity click through the interface of putty.
https://samsaffron.com/archive/2013/05/03/eliminating-my-tri...
I no longer use Moba and have replaced it with a combination of conemu (https://conemu.github.io/) for the shell improvement side (the larger rationale for using MobaXTerm in my case... MS shell being less that good), Windows Subsystem for Linux (for the cygwin stuff in MobaXTerm, and I just use SSH from there) and PuTTY Pageant for windows SSH agent and Bitvise for easy tunnels (https://www.bitvise.com/ssh-client). That may seem like a lot, but each part gets used for its strengths and its all really, really simple (and not all used at once.)
I'm just about sick of PuTTY, though, ready to just drop a copy of MSYS2's ssh.exe in my DropBox\bin folder and leave it at that.
My biggest issue with KiTTY was that it saved the username for subsequent windows - which was really hard to deal with when i'd mistyped the name! Anybody know a keyboard shortcut to forget which user was entered?
Could you replace the url with an HTTPS one? https://www.9bis.net/kitty/ seems working.
It seems a no brainer, but I 'm just surprised that putty.org is http only.
See https://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-saf... (but many of the points have been resolved)
Kitty has a bunch of useful features , I'll give it a go.
Wow - if PuTTY is "the best client in the world" then this must be, by definition, an inferior product.
Edit: found it on the downloads page http://www.9bis.net/kitty/?page=Download
;-)
Maybe someone can explain to me what's valuable about PuTTY or KiTTY given this?
The first line of the release notes is the following sentence: "This is a pre-release (non-production ready)".
Microsoft's implementation includes the full sshd. While I'm happy they're finally onboard with that (could have used it 10 years ago), that's overkill compared to PuTTY/KiTTY.
Most people will never run it.
Second: not everyone is on Windows 10 which is a requirement for the Linux subsystem.
I guess last but not least: in both cases they require installing software. Some corporate users have no control over their own laptops. Putty has a portable version that you don't have to install anything to use.