PuTTY 0.61 released
lists.tartarus.org
lists.tartarus.org
Also, I get complaints of my coworkers because I configure SecureCRT to behave like PuTTy, they say it's dangerous :-/
(I used to use Putty to check my email using mutt remotely when on vacation).
I hope the Tray guys will release an update incorporating these 0.61 changes.
"Last update: November 25th, 2007.
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."
Edit: After reviewing other comments, it appears people weren't aware that PuTTY has X11-style copy/pasting. It helps to read the docs, folks:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#f...
Aside from the various UI paradigms Microsoft has espoused over the years (eg. the 2003 sidebar, the 2007 ribbon, the 2010 tabbed ribbon), other vendors think they have their own intelligent concepts of how a UI should look.
It's just a damned good idea to RTFM, or at least skim it. I skimmed the PuTTY FAQ on day 1, many, many years ago.
Seems like if one couldn't figure out how to cut and paste in PuTTY, they'd check the docs.
Everyone knows the waterfall model is a bad idea, what I wonder is how fast of iteration is too fast? What does the tacit assumptions of multiple releases a day being a good thing say about a product? Does the browser thin-client target enable development process anti-patterns?
PuTTY was done—there was nothing more to add (or rather, remove), so development was stopped (or rather, paused).
Done in the software world doesn't really mean "done", just that its not being working on. Putty wasn't done, there was a list of bugs sitting there waiting to be addressed. But thats not my point, even at its peak of development, putty never had more than 4 releases within a year.
I also had trouble with putty and EC2 certificates. But it looks like they finally fixed that.
I'm all for releasing early, but for many open source developers (myself included) life has a tendency to get in the way sometimes, causing focus to move away from one's projects. Of course, I haven't looked up the details of the PuTTY folks now, but from the release notes it sounds as if they at least aren't getting paid do to PuTTY.
- Windows only?
- Features like 'Protection against unfortunate keyboard input', 'Transparency', 'Background image', 'Send to tray' sound like useless gimmicks to me. Not even mentioning the 'bonus features'.
Protection against unfortunate keyboard input is especially weird and seems to be targeted at root users that have cats and no clue about programs like vlock.
Sure. Putty is for Windows to allow a user to connect to a real computer, running a unix-y operating system.
Except you see a place for Putty in Linux (I guess) and by extension Solaris, HP-UX and etc.
I don't see the point - those already _have_ terminal emulation. It's baked in.
Can you educate me?
1) You're saying that PuTTY is Windows only, and then go on explaining what it is for and why that might be okay.
If that's what you think, that'd be wrong. PuTTY is available on a number of platforms, even on Linux. The port mentioned above though limits itself to Windows. I find that, plus the roadmap, weird & unfortunate to put it politely.
2) But that wasn't your point and you tried to make the point that PuTTY doesn't make _sense_ on platforms that already have a decent terminal emulator, ssh support etc.
In that case: Fair enough. I'd even agree. But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users. It's the old discussion about using native but different clients on a number of platforms or going for a (decent) cross-platform solution. I think it's great to have the choice to use software on a multitude of systems - even if I'm not an active user/see no need for myself.
But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users.
- People who need ssh to a host, who are not comfortable with a command line, or are used to PuTTY.
These might be service desk staff who have instructions like 'ssh to host frumpty, type restart-app [enter]'
Our service desk has instructions like that, but they all use Windows. So, PuTTY. And if they use Linux .. PuTTY. It's easier.
In actuality, they call the 3rd level support and ask them to do that. And, really, we're pushing that stuff to the Enterprise scheduler so all they _really_ have to do is login to _that_ and request job task 'Restart_FOO_App' and it's done for them.
Which, in the long run, doesn't teach them how to do anything but push buttons. And is probably bad for their further development in IT. But I digress.
I don't get how one can be using a 'unix-y' computer and not be familiar with the command line. But I understand there are people out there like that.
I simply found the idea of PuTTY on Unix odd. Like re-inventing the wheel.
If other people like it, like enough to make a port, well good for them.
The port mentioned above though limits itself to Windows. I find that, plus the roadmap, weird & unfortunate to put it politely.
I don't see enough differentiation there replace my use of PuTTY. That it stores values in the registry is enough to sour me on it.
Again, different strokes, different folks.
- On Windows: the Appearance panel now includes a checkbox to allow
the selection of non-fixed-width fonts(...) Thanks
to Randall Munroe for a serious suggestion that inspired this.
It's the one Windows-only tool that I wish worked cross-platform.
Just have the cygwin SSHd port running (which I tend to want installed and configured for other reasons anyway) and use PuTTY to connect to that.
Their default color scheme (black on white) is something I change right after install, but having tabbing and hefty scroll buffers is nice.
A memorable year!
Luckily there is puttycyg!!
I was really hoping for a way to have a windows equivalent of ssh controlmaster.
On the bright side: PuTTY is part of my toolbelt for ages and I cannot live without it. I'm glad to read that it's still alive and being developed.
It's a fairly effective way of getting around situations where the up-front cost of establishing the connection is high (high-latency remote connections, in particular).
You _can_ create tunnels via ssh, even with PuTTY. You _cannot_ use the feature I'm looking for. Tongue in cheek I'd say check the docs on the ControlMaster feature, but this is what it boils down:
Terminal 1:
ssh someHostThatYouNeedForLotsOfThings [options here]
(.. wait for the negotiation, connect. Good)
Terminal 2 to N
ssh thatVerySameHost [options here]
(reuses the handshake, is _much_ faster to connect)
Why do I want that? Couldn't I just use one connection and start tmux/screen? Turns out, no, I cannot. As soon as you have anything that actually needs to send data from your machine to the target host (i.e. nothing interactive. Think scp. git.) you need to open a new connection - and that's when I'm hoping for this feature on Windows.
You can sit and pine for some random GUI feature if you want. The rest of us are getting work done.
The feature I want is _not_ a GUI feature. It's a ssh feature that is not supported on Windows. Whether you like it, need it, want it - I don't really care. It's not supported on a platform that I regularly have to use and I'd have loved to see PuTTY implement it.
There's no 'please make me a shiny button' involved, this is about a _network_ (or socket - that seems to be the limitation if I understand the reasons for the lack of this correctly) feature of the ssh _protocol_ that is not currently supported by any ssh client on Windows, for all I can tell.
Your solution - for all I can tell, solves the problem if you control client and server (you can use it to have a persistent and maybe shared connection to encapsulate random stuff). That's not my point though. I want regular commands a la ssh host something or scp, svn, git, whatever to be faster. That's something SSH supports with a feature that is NOT a GUI feature (just making sure that you get it). But not on Windows, unfortunately. Neither in PuTTY nor in any CLI (hint) client, for all I know.
But even for shells, I went back to PuTTY anyway -- It came down to cost + time setting up on new machines vs. using PuTTY's "Duplicate Session" feature with ssh keys loaded into Pageant.
Since then I've moved on to using a persistent X11 VNC session over a plink tunnel :)
Doing a quick test, I'm seeing that PuTTY 0.61 speeds up SFTP downloads of already compressed data by a factor of 4 compared to PuTTY 0.60. Fantastic!
"Windows 7 jump lists are now supported so you can launch saved sessions directly from the taskbar."
"Corruption of data transferred over port forwardings is _probably_ fixed "
I switched to TeraTERM recently and it solves most of my problems - remembers sessions, passwords, has tabs and is stable enough.
However, if I start putty.exe using command line with parameter <host_name> I can see the window.
I am using 32 bit Windows XP SP3 on Intel x86
Strange, because previous version was working perfectly fine! Anybody experiencing same?