4 ms·
Surprising to see that many (49?) SSH implementations. I'd've expected there to be maybe four libraries everyone was using, OpenSSH and a handful of NIH orgs. W
by l0b0 4y ago
Surprising to see that many (49?) SSH implementations. I'd've expected there to be maybe four libraries everyone was using, OpenSSH and a handful of NIH orgs. Why do Erlang, PuTTY, and SSH.NET not use existing libraries? Are there any articles explaining why the landscape is so fragmented?
- pdw 4y agoYou're perhaps under the impression that OpenSSH was the original implementation: it's not, it's a relative latecomer :) The original SSH was (and still is) commercial software, see ssh.com. You basically end up with three groups: - The original SSH and it's commercial competitors. Some abandoned, some still surviving. - Various open source implementations. OpenSSH and PuTTY were the winners (PuTTY actually was released first). But there were more attempts (e.g. lsh). - Those early open source implementations were designed as stand-alone programs (clients and servers). So you have a later wave of library implementations. With of course at least one per language.
- ktm5j 4y agoWow I knew openssh wasn't the first, and that commercial implementations existed, but had no idea the first implementation was commercial.