> I don’t give a hoot about the native command line tools, except for needing SSH to be present WHICH WINDOWS SCREWS UP AS WELL.
Yes, that's true, and as usual, but there's always BitVise: http://www.bitvise.com , which, in spite of the impression created by the Website, has a free version that works very well.
I mention this because I have always required SSH access to any OS that I respected and expected to make use of, but until recently the Windows offerings were pretty terrible.
I have no connection with BitVise except having successfully used their SSH product.
Simple answer -- I didn't know they offered a Windows SSH server. And I just checked and -- whoops -- they don't.
The problem isn't an absence of SSH clients, the problem is a shortage of SSH servers.
I much prefer to have all systems serve SSH -- that way they can all talk to each other as equals. If I accepted putty as a solution, I would have to sit at the Windows machine to make transfers. Thanks, but no thanks.
Believe me when I tell you ... I don't want Cygwin. When I want a Linux-like experience, I return to one of my primary computers, all of which run Linux.
For Windows, what I want is a way to make it appear as much as possible like a remote Linux server, granted that it's running an absurd operating system with a bunch of peculiarities like drive letters, confusion of upper and lower case pathnames, and the inability to register anything less precise than two seconds of time (in file and directory access times). So a simple SSH server seems like the best approach.
6 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 20.7 ms ] threadYes, that's true, and as usual, but there's always BitVise: http://www.bitvise.com , which, in spite of the impression created by the Website, has a free version that works very well.
I mention this because I have always required SSH access to any OS that I respected and expected to make use of, but until recently the Windows offerings were pretty terrible.
I have no connection with BitVise except having successfully used their SSH product.
The problem isn't an absence of SSH clients, the problem is a shortage of SSH servers.
I much prefer to have all systems serve SSH -- that way they can all talk to each other as equals. If I accepted putty as a solution, I would have to sit at the Windows machine to make transfers. Thanks, but no thanks.
("Cygwin - Don't leave Unix without it!")
For Windows, what I want is a way to make it appear as much as possible like a remote Linux server, granted that it's running an absurd operating system with a bunch of peculiarities like drive letters, confusion of upper and lower case pathnames, and the inability to register anything less precise than two seconds of time (in file and directory access times). So a simple SSH server seems like the best approach.