begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Culley <rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <20061023225416.7b44553e@ed-desktop>,
> ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 23 Oct 2006 13:55:25 -0700
>>
>> and so much just cant be done ootb. de ja vu, but 2 years ago.
>>
>> why, for crying out load doesnt ms just put ssh client/server in,
>> they have telnet daemon, so why not ssh? it's been around for ages.
>
> What use is ssh for accessing Windows systems? None. You could use it
> to add better security and encryption for tunneling remote desktop I
> presume if it could be made to work.
>
> ssh is one of the coolest apps ever written. Trouble is it just
> doesn't fit into the MS way of doing things. Hence I doubt MS will
> ever see a need to offer it. Being able to run apps remotely without
> paying the MS tax is just a no no. Using a Windows box to access other,
> non-MS, systems is an even bigger no no.
You've struck on precisely why MS do not and will not go this route, and
equally, why they do not support multiple users on the same machine, nor
why they will not support network transparency for their GUI display
system. It's all about licence revenue. They sell an extra licence by
creating a complex "client-server" arrangement, in that you buy a
licence both for the server and for the client. This is an excellent
way of trousering extra cash from the customer.
>
> For *nix systems ssh is an incredible tool. With X tunneling it is
> simply superb. Windows just doesn't have the flexibility for a tool
> like ssh.
>
Nor will it have for simple, business economic, reasons.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
/* we have tried to make this normal case as abnormal as possible */
-- Larry Wall in cmd.c from the perl source code
|
|
