3 ms·
What I never really got is why Simon Tatham refuses to improve the original PuTTY. He must know it is used mainly on Windows (is anyone actually using the Unix
by barryhaanstra 13y ago
What I never really got is why Simon Tatham refuses to improve the original PuTTY. He must know it is used mainly on Windows (is anyone actually using the Unix version?).
His wishlist stated that tray support was tricky (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/system-tray.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/s...), but when I wrote the original Tray patch I was shocked to find that I could do it with a few lines of code (and I didn't have any experience with C or the Windows API)...
- asveikau 13y agoReading the wish list I do get the impression that he doesn't have a great intuition about Win32. (My own background: I worked in the Windows division at MSFT for a few years). Particularly telling is the item about not knowing what form of IPC to use to simulate Unix domain sockets in pagent (no mention of Win32 rpc or named pipes), alongside some weird ideas about SendMessage and modal dialogs... Or the part where he says he won't do a wince port since he'd have to rewrite with wide strings (not that wince is as relevant as it used to be). I am surprised that the author of such great windows software is writing some of these things. It does bear repeating though that putty is a great application and the list of stuff he has knocked off on his changelog (same page as the wish list) looks impressive.