Putty is pretty awful anyway. Git for windows installs a shell that is not terrible, includes an ssh client, and is distributed over https. It is my go-to when I have to use a windows machine.
Its built-in SSH server is great for moving files to and from my workstation quickly when I need it.
Best One Liner about commercial Open Source software : The only kind of profit strategy that is incompatible with Open Source is monopoly-based sales, also known as "royalties". [] http://opensource.org/faq#profit
That being said, when I'm looking for git and friends I like to go further and install more of cygwin to run the native port of rxvt and then run ssh inside of THAT.
So it's not really a solution for a shell in the way that PuTTY is, since PuTTY also is a decent terminal emulator for Windows. Not the greatest, but decent. It's the single-binary, run from a thumbdrive option.
Let me buy you a beer. I just run linux.
Dealing with mixed OS environments... it keeps you busy.
Can you seriously compare PuTTY with even the most lacklustre terminal available on OS X or Linux? It's an atrocity of UX design straight out of the Windows 95 era.
Their home page is also the epitome of not caring about user experience even to the slightest degree. Nearly zero effort: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/
I've seen people construct more impressive pages given only a few hours of HTML and CSS training. I'm not even kidding.
I'm not saying everything has to be slick and beautiful, but there's a thing called pride in craftsmanship, and PuTTY has none of that. It's just sad.
I agree it's not obvious how to use that portion of the UI, and the UI is far from ideal, but once you understand how it switches profiles, then you're pretty much set. That issue doesn't occur again anywhere else in the application so it's a rather minor issue if you ask me.
There's not a single thing wrong with PuTTY's UX either. The terminal area is just a terminal area that does what it's supposed to and behaves exactly like any other terminal emulator, and the options are clearly organized. There is literally no meaningful change you could make to improve its UX because it's already optimal.
If you prefer it, that's fine, but some people expect a bit more from their tools than merely being "functional" no matter how ugly.
Well designed can refer to more than just the interface. It meets historical windows human interface guidelines too.
I'd also suggest that its an open source project, and could be forked, with a new UI wrapped around the existing pretty good terminal emulation.
I think portable here is referring to being able to run software from a USB drive without running an installer or just being able to download a file into a temporary folder and removing trace of it by deleting the folder when done. I feel a lot of the initial love for putty was the fact that it was portable (and it also helped back in the day that the download was so small, too.)
It is possible as far as I know that it doesn't meet the formal definition in some way, but since you used the term in air quotes and didn't qualify it (like 'but it stores settings in the registry' or similar), I think you may be interpreting the term differently (i.e. I don't think the term is being used to suggest that you can use the same executable across operating systems.)
I don't see the rush of elephants to fork it, or write a replacement either, just a bunch of passive complaining.
https
Also, the default encoding was changed to UTF-8 only quite recently - IMO that should have been done much earlier.
That's because it's middle-click instead of right-click in X. But windows traditionally did not have 3-button mouses, so right-click it is. I use middle-click to paste several times per hour.
That page is awful. Period. What do I want from a website that exists to distribute one program? Some effort. Some class. Something more than the software equivalent of being wrapped in greasy newspaper.
When you say "its UX because it's already optimal" you're basically saying "I do not value fit and finish, I am purely interested in functionality, I also make my own underwear out of used socks."
Why am I so upset? It's because of this attitude. Taking the time to make a nice page and present your software with pride shows you care. Using the same old HTML from 1997 says you don't care.
Would it kill programmers to talk to designers and do some knowledge sharing?
Yes, there is. It garbles some characters. Ncurses-based applications sometimes look like a hot mess.
I wonder how much of the hate here is from people who don't understand the problems that are inherent to writing a terminal emulator. It makes sense to be frustrated by it, but it's not putty's fault.
I've been using putty for about fifteen years, and use ncurses extensively. The only thing I've wanted to do in PuTTY that I've been unable to (that I can remember) is to get 24-bit colour working. It may be that I'm making the situation artificially simple for myself because I run everything in tmux, which may filter some translation issues.
Your point in another thread about the putty defaults being non-standard is a good point, and the only meaningful criticism I can see if it here. Not defaulting to UTF8 may be another.
> How about the fact that it's awful?
Is this really what passes today for a decent reply? It's an atrocity of attempted logic straight of the Windows 95 era.
The logic used is also the epitome of not caring about putting up a decent argument even to the slightest degree. Nearly zero effort.
I've seen people construct more impressive arguments given only a kindergarten education. I'm not even kidding.
I'm not saying everything has to be lengthy and grammatically correct, but there's such a thing called pride in logic, and astrodust has none of that. It's just sad.
I wish more websites were functional and clean like that.
Yes, I can compare. PuTTY is superior than the default xubuntu terminal, whatever it is.
1. I can configure it to connect to specific server automatically, including setting up all required SSH tunnels. On Linux I have to write shell scripts.
2. It allows to automatically set up a SOCKS proxy that sends my traffic through the remote server.
3. Selecting text copies it straight to clipboard. Copying to middle-click buffer is much less convenient, because I often want to replace other selected text with what I selected in terminal.
Most of the people I know that use putty really use MTPutty [0] nowadays for multiple tabbed terminal windows. I haven't touched windows in years but if I were to go back I would use cygwin or similar before I used putty.
A more focused, no-networking kind of PuTTY. Reads your settings from your "home directory" on windows, very handy.
People don't like writing terminal emulators. I don't blame them!!!