PuTTY has a new website

Post by account42 » Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 8:36 AM UTC

rokkamokka wrote: post #144

zo1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems similar to the Notepad++ team using their platform to promote political viewpoints. The same thing happened with Facebook "pages", when they became a personal "soap box" by the owner of the page. It was downhill from there... You might as well turn the whole web into FB/Twitter/X/Insta promotional spam at that point.

It's one thing to say "stand with Ukraine", and an entirely different thing to spread vaccine misinformation...

Post by account42 » Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 8:42 AM UTC

Ukv wrote: post #148

closewith wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, your caveat at the end there is exactly why this method shouldn't be trusted, as it's indistinguishable from an attacker with access to embed a single link. So it doesn't confirm the account belongs to the author, it confirms the site has a specific link and nothing more.

A regular link won't do, since it requires the rel="me" attribute, which is intended for this purpose: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/... Adding a tag or creating a page with certain content are already used even for more impactful verification, like getting issued a certificate for that domain. If an attacker does have broad access to edit the HTML of your website, I feel that's already…

Post by account42 » Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 8:52 AM UTC

DrinkyBird wrote: post #166

recursive wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. In those screenshots cmd looks better. Not sure what's up.

It's the lack of subpixel anti-aliasing (aka ClearType). For some reason it's being erased from a lot of modern software. It's why Windows >= 8 UWP apps and GNOME look so blurry.

Post by account42 » Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 9:01 AM UTC

immibis wrote: post #118

neilv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks like an open and shut ICANN trademark case to me. https://web.archive.org/web/20250728091154/https://www.putty...

Do they have a trademark? It costs $325 per year plus roughly $650 for the initial application (even if rejected). Is he paying that?

Post by account42 » Mon, Aug 18, 2025, 9:07 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #19

Somehow, these new long TLDs just feel spammy and "fake" and I usually ignore them when they show up in search results. Unfortunately the .com, .net and .org are already taken.