Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

chiark.greenend.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#81

Post by isxek »

oinksoft wrote: post #35
randallsquared wrote: post #6

Since starting to use Windows 8, I found that the grouping behavior of the taskbar combined with a dozen open PuTTY windows drove me insane. There's a multiple-tabbed PuTTY shell, but it was hard to get used to as well. I finally switched to the Chrome SSH client, which has been much better (though it doesn't have nearly the features of PuTTY, of course).

It's been a while since I was stuck on a Windows box, but I found the combination of Console2 (tabbed terminal emulator) with Cygwin[1] was quite nice. Then you can use `ssh', `scp', etc. like you would on a Unix machine. You might want to try this approach if you're willing to go as far as to do this from your browser (which gives me shivers). This was on Windows XP but I imagine it still works. [1] http://sourcefor…

There's a fork named ConsoleZ [1] which is more actively developed. It provides a number of features which goes well with newer versions of Windows.

[1] https://github.com/cbucher/console/wiki/Downloads

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#82

Post by adestefan »

tene wrote: post #33
kyrra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a troll statement, but I feel Windows does a lot of things well. * For large organizations, domain controls make managing a large number of desktops much easier. * I feel MS Office on windows is a better product than the mac version (if you do a lot of document work). * Gaming. Windows is still dominant for desktop games. * Windows isn't the walled garden that Mac is going towards. * Backwards compatib…

Would you mind explaining what domain controls offer? I've never worked with a large windows desktop install base, so I have no idea what domain controls do exactly.

The big win is Group Policy. You can centrally control every single option, including many applications, for every single Windows system on the domain. It's like puppet on steroids and HGH.

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#83

Post by dwn »

taspeotis wrote: post #78
gcb0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in win8 if you are using a metro application you can't switch to a specific window right away in all the ways you can with windows 7. at least not in the old build i used.

I can't disagree, but I doubt that if you're using PuTTY you're using Metro.

metro is built in. there is no "not using metro"

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#84

Post by Freaky »

regularfry wrote: post #76
mirkules wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought was this sounds a lot like the "screen" command. Which is basically true, but with the added benefit of screen splitting. Also, tmux is distributed under the BSD license (instead of GPL). http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Screen_vs_tmux

That article implies that tmux is faster than screen. While it may be the case that it uses fewer resources (which I've not checked), it's exclusively been my experience that tmux is laggy where screen isn't.

That's not been my experience at all - I can't say I've ever seen tmux perform noticeably worse than screen, but under extreme load tmux always seems to cope better. e.g. dumping 250k lines takes screen over a minute, while tmux will be done in under 3 seconds and be more responsive while that's happening. It's nice to be able to ^C something spammy and not have time to go make a cup of tea before it responds.

I have experienced lagginess with tmux, but this has been more down to VTE and/or mosh performing particularly badly with large terminals. A fullscreen 266x188 tmux session on urxvt is massively smoother than with Terminator/gnome-terminal/Terminology/etc, and with remote sessions ssh is similarly massively smoother than mosh. Kind of disheartening given today's ridiculously powerful hardware.

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#85

Post by ape4 »

laumars wrote: post #80
ape4 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since putty.exe is so small you could make a bunch of copies. Launch putty1.exe for the first session, etc.

Duplicating the PuTTY binary for each session makes about as much sense as having a separate MS Office installation for each and every Word document.

Except Word is huge and probably can't handle multiple installations. I admit its a hack.

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#86

Post by laacz »

randallsquared wrote: post #6

Since starting to use Windows 8, I found that the grouping behavior of the taskbar combined with a dozen open PuTTY windows drove me insane. There's a multiple-tabbed PuTTY shell, but it was hard to get used to as well. I finally switched to the Chrome SSH client, which has been much better (though it doesn't have nearly the features of PuTTY, of course).

Little late to the party, but I did not find a way to paste from clipboard when using windows and Apple keyboard. Insert key is not working, so ctrl/shift+ins won't work. In putty pasting is done via right mouse click.

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#87

Post by regularfry »

Freaky wrote: post #84
regularfry wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article implies that tmux is faster than screen. While it may be the case that it uses fewer resources (which I've not checked), it's exclusively been my experience that tmux is laggy where screen isn't.

That's not been my experience at all - I can't say I've ever seen tmux perform noticeably worse than screen, but under extreme load tmux always seems to cope better. e.g. dumping 250k lines takes screen over a minute, while tmux will be done in under 3 seconds and be more responsive while that's happening. It's nice to be able to ^C something spammy and not have time to go make a cup of tea before it responds. I have…

Weird. I've had tmux lock up when too much text gets dumped through it.

Re: PuTTY 0.63 released, fixing four security holes

#88

Post by laumars »

ape4 wrote: post #85
laumars wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duplicating the PuTTY binary for each session makes about as much sense as having a separate MS Office installation for each and every Word document.

Except Word is huge and probably can't handle multiple installations. I admit its a hack.

It's not Word that would handle the multiple installations, it would be your HDD - since all that matters is the storage space you have available.

But that's moot as you'ed missed my point. I'm talking about how you only need one install of Word to open up multiple unique word documents. Just as you only need one copy of PuTTY to run multiple unique SSH sessions. duplicating the exe isn't a hack; it's just an unnecessary waste of disk space since you gain literally nothing (all the different exe's will point to the same registry keys for their profiles and all the exe's can run multiple instances).

And this is why I made my Word analogy - because what you're advising is worse than useless.

Post reply on HN