undefined | Better HN

0 pointspjc507y ago0 comments

> I expected the simple encryption mechanism, over which whatever communicates

In the UNIX world, that's what it gives you - a stream of bytes. Hence things like rsync-over-ssh or git-over-ssh. It also has a port forwarding mode which has special support for X11, which gives you remote windowing over a stream of bytes too.

The main, huge, benefit is that the abstraction is pretty simple, it's discoverable, and you can use the same interface as a human. You can also plug any stream-of-bytes into any other stream-of-bytes, whereas API or RPC based systems have to be designed to interoperate.

0 comments

acqq7y ago

As I’ve tried to implement my minimal ssh client (just to connect, execute some command and get the result) I’ve had exactly opposite impression of the “just a stream of bytes” that you mention -- exactly the lack the abstraction. Can you point to any source that does ssh without having to care about a lot of weird terminal and console ancient stuff? I’d be really glad to see it! To me it looked as “everything and the kitchen sink” (that is, exactly the kind of things mentioned in the OP or the comments, like terminal signals and whatnot) has to be there.

SSL is straightforward compared that, at least, once the keys are set. But ssh... as seen in the OP even the console or the terminal or however that part it called has to be very special, and they are obviously proud they implemented that too. In 2018. Probably decades after the last single hardware terminal was sold.

pasabagi7y ago

I see your point - but don't you find it kinda charming? It's a bit like drinking tea in a china cup, or eating a scone with clotted cream.

I think there is probably a lot of room for improvement in the terminal world, and I agree that a lot of the really old stuff makes things a bit counter-intuitive, but for whatever reason, it seems that people who make really good software also tend to be the people who are pretty fanatical about backwards compatibility. Consider vim, for instance.

In the end, I think the basic model of interoperable, small programs that manipulate streams of text is really good - so people will put up with any number of weird rituals to live in that model. It's also very humble, and very unexciting, so it's the kind of thing that's hard to get people hyped about. So it probably filters by the people that like old things.

ThJ7y ago

You are conflating what SSH does with what the terminal you're running it in does. SSH barely knows what terminal emulation is. You can literally pipe binary data into it at one end and receive that data into a program at the other end. That's what programs like scp and rsync do. They launch ssh and use it as a data channel.

acqq7y ago

> You can literally pipe binary data into it at one end and receive that data into a program at the other end

That is the user perspective, not what has to be in a ssh program to work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspjc507y ago0 comments

> I expected the simple encryption mechanism, over which whatever communicates

0 comments

acqq7y ago

pasabagi7y ago

I see your point - but don't you find it kinda charming? It's a bit like drinking tea in a china cup, or eating a scone with clotted cream.

ThJ7y ago

acqq7y ago

> You can literally pipe binary data into it at one end and receive that data into a program at the other end

That is the user perspective, not what has to be in a ssh program to work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse