Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by mailbo » Sat, 18 Jun 2005 05:58:09


I've been assigned to a project to implement a small file distribution
system: a bunch of Perl scripts that look for incoming files from
sources and route them to users over the Internet via FTP. Mostly
automatic, but it has a minimal operator interface -- to add/drop users
and sources, set some running parameters, etc. When I read the
preliminary design I assumed that that part would be implemented as a
GUI using Tk widgets. But no, the client (a govt. agency) insisted on a
Curses interface. I joked about them wanting a 1970s-era interface.
However, as a Unix workstation veteran who for the first time has to
access a remote Unix (AIX) host through a PC running a Linux emulator
(Cygwin), I can begin to see that, whatever the actual reasoning (if
any) behind their decision, it makes sense by default in this
environment.

The local PC folks who set up my system didn't install any Unix
interface, and so I had to make a help desk request. Then they
installed Cygwin...but didn't bother to, you know, provide for the
DISPLAY variable to be set to allow me actually to open xterms and such
from the remote host and I had to call them back. Now I can't figure
out how to make the middle mouse button behave and how to set the
window focus to be pointer instead of click. So if it's this much
trouble to see a Unix system through a PC, might as well stick with an
installation-proof interface, no matter how clunky.
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by Anton Eras » Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:05:47


[Snipped]


Try Putty for accessing a Unix box from a Windows PC. Works quite
nicely for curses based applications.

Regards
Anton Erasmus

 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by The Ghost » Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:00:04

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anton Erasmus
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote
on Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:05:47 +0200
<1121374985.6e90eec571ca630be3cd215d8b2f6078@teranews>:


The main problem I've found with Putty (they might have fixed it by now)
is that generated user identity keys are incompatible with ssh; they
use a different format.

Annoying if one has a Linux box with a .ssh/id_rsa or .ssh/id_dsa
already.

--
#191, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
It's still legal to go .sigless.
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by RRB » Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:25:00


...
...

I'm using putty to connect via ssh with linux servers for years and it simply
works perfectly. What kind of problem are you experiencing?

--
"Mi scusi se la infortuno signorina,
ma questi modoli, che enno da ripienare?"

RRB @ http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by The Ghost » Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:00:04

In comp.os.linux.setup, RRB
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote
on Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:25:00 +0200
<42d78efc$0$341$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:


The connection is fine; my complaint has to do with identity management.
Basically, if I create a private key for one of ssh or putty
I can't use the other as a sender. (The public key is fine.)

In short, I can't share my identity between putty and ssh from a
Windows machine. (I've not tried putty from Wine.) It's some sort
of format discrepancy, AFAICT.

--
#191, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
It's still legal to go .sigless.
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by kermi » Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:36:08


[...]

really? I wonder what I have been doing all the time then.

Have you ever looked at importing SSH key option in puttygen?

Unless under "sharing" you mean virtually using the same file. Yes that it
not possible; but then again it is the same with OpenSSH vs. ssh.com.

=arvi=
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by The Ghost » Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:02

In comp.os.linux.setup, kermit
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote
on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:36:08 +0400
<dba9sq$n1h$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:


Ah, OK; that might be what I need to use putty.

Thanks.

--
#191, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
It's still legal to go .sigless.
 
 
 

Irony of stone-age interface for Unix-emulating XP box

Post by Andrew Pre » Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:14:30

* The Ghost In The Machine < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:

That's because PuTTY and OpenSSH use different formats for their
private keys. It's not a big problem because PuTTY can convert
an OpenSSH private key to its own format (long line ahead):

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~sgtatham/putty/0.58/htmldoc/Chapter8.html#puttygen-conversions

--
Andrew Preater