This was someone who supplied ssh binaries for older SCO Unix, but bzipped them. Unfortunately, SCO dodn't have bzip either, which meant a person wanting these had to get that first.
From: Tony Lawrence <email@example.com> Subject: Re: How on earth, was Re: New OpenSSH packages available (3.1p1) Brian K. White wrote: > Tony Lawrence <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:<3C937DA5.email@example.com>... >> >>BTW, that's yet another example of the kind of thing that frustrates >>people. Somebody goes searching for OSR5 ssh binaries and gets a >>pointer to your ftp site. Great! Here it is, all ready to go.. but they >>can't do a thing with it because they don't have Bzip. >> > > - forward: This is not personally directed at you Tony, I'm just > putting forth an emphatically different point of view on this topic. - > > oh wahhh :) > > I have no patience for people who think the guy doing the real work is > obligated to also practically install and configure it on their > machine for them too. Not the point. As someone providing a service to someone else, you aren't OBLIGATED to do anything,and the operating phrase is "you don't look a gift horse in the mouth". However: obviously you have REASONS for sharing whatever it is you shared. Sometimes those reasons are completely altruistic, but more commonly there is some self-directed motivation that is at least part of it: you perhaps hope to gain some degree of award, financial, fame, whatever. In the case of sharing binaries like this, your altruistic motives might include easing the pain of Unix for those new to it, and your other motives might include being seen as a person who can do such things, which might bring you income later, recognition from your peers now, etc. Given that you have at least one or more of those motives, why on earth would you want to screw it up by making it difficult? You say: > finally.... who installs ssh on sco boxes anyway? people who need or > expect to keep using their system in it's stock installed state? no, > those people are using telnet and rlogin. if you are replacing telnet > with ssh, then I say it is not unreasonable to expect you to at least > be comfortable with also replacing compress with bzip2. Otherwise, you > are hardly fit to be installing and configuring ssh in the first > place, *especially* on sco which is not one of the environments it is > most commonly used on, developed on, and thus, supported on. Someone might very well want ssh JUST so they can ssh out to somewhere else. That's what I use it for on the SCO box here- I have no need to run sshd, but when I'm doing SCO work it is convenient to be able to use ssh to go out. There's no configuration, so it's not a case where anyone needs to know anything more than getting the ssh binary. So-again- why make it difficult? If your motives were to ease the pain of Unix, you sure haven't helped that at all. If you wanted recognition, well, you probably got that, but you also probably got annoyance along with it, and annoyance tends to cancel out the recognition, doesn't it? IMHO, this has been one of the many problems that have kept Unix pushed down: this geek mentality that demands a test of manhood in exchange for anything it gives freely. -- Tony Lawrence SCO/Linux Support Tips, How-To's, Tests and more:
Got something to add? Send me email.
More Articles by Tony Lawrence © 2011-03-18 Tony Lawrence