21–30 of 87 posts
HN discussion when this was originally posted 471 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8828543
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand the comparison. openssl s_client creates a TLS connection, but doesn't drive the HTTP protocol; it's a generic bidirectional encrypted transport. Lots of chat protocols use TLS in exactly this manner. But I'm going a step further: I think even if you're stuck with HTTPS/HTTP/2, you're still better off tunneling your application protocol over that than SSH.
Part of the appeal of the ssh chat server from the article is that you can connect to the server using an existing console tool. It's not necessary to have a purpose-built client. So I've been trying to think: how could you get that convenience, but using HTTPS instead of SSH. [based on your example above] In an update above I've talked about socat. That's less convenient than ssh, because socat is obscure vs ssh. A…
HN discussion when this was originally posted 471 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8828543
I need to get on that hacker news api and figure out what the half life of a HN user is, so we can tell whether 471 days is a meaningful value. I suspect a large number of people reading this weren't around then. (I think I measured that 2/3 of posters here don't have at least 501 karma, so you can use that as a ballpark figure.)
HN discussion when this was originally posted 471 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8828543
I need to get on that hacker news api and figure out what the half life of a HN user is, so we can tell whether 471 days is a meaningful value. I suspect a large number of people reading this weren't around then. (I think I measured that 2/3 of posters here don't have at least 501 karma, so you can use that as a ballpark figure.)
That said, I don't remember the previous posting of this article, so linking to previous comments is useful. It lets me compare the discussions and see how opinions do or don't change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the appeal of the ssh chat server from the article is that you can connect to the server using an existing console tool. It's not necessary to have a purpose-built client. So I've been trying to think: how could you get that convenience, but using HTTPS instead of SSH. [based on your example above] In an update above I've talked about socat. That's less convenient than ssh, because socat is obscure vs ssh. A…
You can use Lynx. It is a terminal based web browser, and is older than SSH. It exists for many platforms and is not particularly obscure or difficult to use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
Consider: could you implement a chat app that worked as effectively as the ssh one if you used lynx as the client? No, because interaction with lynx is synchronous.
The original article is making a point that you can build effective apps that work over ssh. The post at the root of this thread raised concerns about using ssh specifically.
Hypothetically you could have a console based web browser that supported javascript and websockets, and then expose the chat server over javascript. But that wouldn't be a good solution either: it's a specialised client and a large number of layers to achieve something that the ssh chat app shows to be straightforward - a secure, generic approach to exposing async functionality to a thin console tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need to get on that hacker news api and figure out what the half life of a HN user is, so we can tell whether 471 days is a meaningful value. I suspect a large number of people reading this weren't around then. (I think I measured that 2/3 of posters here don't have at least 501 karma, so you can use that as a ballpark figure.)
Some users are lurkers. I created this account 1921 days ago but have only 201 karma. That said, I don't remember the previous posting of this article, so linking to previous comments is useful. It lets me compare the discussions and see how opinions do or don't change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some users are lurkers. I created this account 1921 days ago but have only 201 karma. That said, I don't remember the previous posting of this article, so linking to previous comments is useful. It lets me compare the discussions and see how opinions do or don't change.
You know, maybe I'm wrong, but I read the comment as a cheap way to register superiority over the OP - essentially saying "we already talked about this, so move along." That's not as valuable when "we" changes over time, and (as you pointed out) a lot of "us" don't participate in every discussion. IMHO we'd be better off if we didn't have to hear about it every time an old topic got resurrected.
Whose comment? fjarlq's comment? If so, I also might be wrong, but I read it as "Here's old discussion on the topic. Might be worth reading to see if what you want to talk about today has already been hashed out, or if there's discussion that you might find interesting.".
Does SSH have PFS?
"SSH session keys are ephemeral and are exchanged between hosts using DHE."