putty.org is not run by the PuTTY developers
hachyderm.io
hachyderm.io
I have sympathy about the domain squatting but at this point you're making it easy for them when that's your official url.
I'm sure in the past chiark was top. Given how popular putty at least was, for windows users, surely those search enginers should be able to override
I guess the main one gets money when someone visits putty.org though, so maybe that's it.
I'd maybe hesitate more if the legit address was clearly associated with a university (.edu or other hallmarks) but not even that.
It was a time people used mirrors, because while a connection to the far east was possible, it was painfully slow for a variety of reasons
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/mirrors.h...
Since the late 00s though the world has changed and very few write software for fun, or to scratch an itch. It's always a hustle, waiting to be monetised or at the very least to pad a resume.
I like the fact part of the old world still exists in such a high profile area.
Like, the only logical outcome I see is hobbyists pulling their projects.
Looking at their website, "denis bider" is not just "support" but the main person beyond Bitvise, FYI. He also seems to think that "Biological viruses are made up. Virology is a fake field of study. [..] Virology, like journalism, is where an entire field is fraudulent".[1] When you're so triggered having to wear a mask for public safety you just start dismissing entire fields of science that don't fit your ideology and offend you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's no surprise the reasoning in that email is so bizarre and barely connects to the actual question. It's just this person's personality.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250417152336/https://blog.deni...
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250714144716/https://putty.org...
The reporter was an unbearable asshole. They were not reporting but pushing and agenda through questions. They were definitely jaq-ing off and trying to push their own view that holding putty.org is unethical. I fail to see what research the so-called "journalist" was conducting.
I applauded Denis. There was no correct answer that could have been given here. The "journalist" just wanted a quote to attach to an article which was already written in their mind about how the site was unethical and "stealing" putty.org.
They are selling a commercial product by using the name of a popular open source tool, which on top of that is additionally a direct competitor. How "friendly" the site is designed is a factor but doesn't change that fact in the end.
Anyone has the right to buy a domain.
The site serves the purpose which you could criticise him for not serving:
It lets you download PuTTY.
putty.com sells jars with goo, and they don't provide links to the SSH client.
> They are selling a commercial product by using the name of a popular open source tool
You have to look with a historical perspective here.
He's giving away related software for free.
Sure, you can buy a commercial license, but almost nobody does.
> on top of that is additionally a direct competitor
I've heard the market for free Windows SSH clients is fierce!
> How "friendly" the site is designed is a factor
Yes, it certainly is.
It is a factor that spells out his intent quite clearly as one that isn't ill-willed.
He's putting the real PuTTY client first on the site.
He's not doing weird stuff like serving his own executables.
He's not showing ads.
He's disclaiming that his own software is not endorsed by PuTTY.
He's giving away similar software.
He's basically saying,
"Hey, now that you're here, I made an SSH client, too, you might like it!"
When you say OP, you mean on here, and so neither Bider nor the "journalist"?
He's forwarding to Simon Tatham's page and always have; he's not providing mirrored executables.
The domain owner knows what people are coming for, and has forwarded to the right page for more than two decades.
I see that it may be a cause for concern because of our consciousness about software supply chains we have today.
But the domain owner of putty.org provides his own unorthodox but reliable service to the online community.
On the other hand, putty.net is just for sale. Which application is more moral here?
I would say that it is.
He is freeriding on the PuTTY brand name to popularise his own SSH client.
It definitely has an element of being questionable. It won't win him the Nobel Peace Prize.
But it isn't even a "dark pattern": He's not tricking anyone to make the wrong choice.
He has provided a clear and unambiguous download path to the original PuTTY for two decades.
Which of doing that and selling a domain to the highest bidder has had more value to PuTTY?
I remember using the putty.org domain 20 years ago when I was still a Windows user, and remembering "I know this isn't the official site, but he forwards to the real distribution page, so there's no risk." And it never was any different.
I find it a little incredible that the moral police comes around decades later, when I remember one sentiment back then was "Wow, he's making the effort to make PuTTY more reachable, what a nice guy."
The era of which also coincides with the era when browsing to long URLs to university domains with tildes and usernames was commonplace
At any rate, I similarly don’t have any utility for this bitvise client either and it’s very scummy behavior and textbook trademark infringement to confuse the user by using the putty name to promote a competitor, even with that weak disclaimer
So in that situation it is ten times faster and easier to just download Putty and immediately start working.
Ah, okay I'll be vigilant. What is it then, something like putty.com? ...
> The PuTTY website is https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ and it always has been.
... ah, I think I see the problem ...