-\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.52 2004/01/21 17:11:55 simon Exp $
+\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.59 2004/02/13 12:19:26 jacob Exp $
\A{faq} PuTTY FAQ
ones will not. Adding an option to turn host key checking off
completely is the wrong solution and we will not do it.
+If you have host keys available in the common \c{known_hosts} format,
+we have a script called
+\W{http://cvs.tartarus.org/putty/contrib/kh2reg.py}\c{kh2reg.py}
+to convert them to a Windows .REG file, which can be installed ahead of
+time by double-clicking or using \c{REGEDIT}.
+
\S{faq-server}{Question} Will you write an SSH server for the PuTTY
suite, to go with the client?
layer, drawing a clear line between platform-dependent and
platform-independent code. The general intention was for this
porting layer to evolve naturally as part of the process of doing
-the first port; a Unix port is now under way and the plan seems to
-be working so far.
+the first port; a Unix port has now been released and the plan
+seems to be working so far.
\S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist?
-Currently, release versions of PuTTY only run on full Win32 systems.
-This includes Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it includes Windows NT,
-Windows 2000 and Windows XP. In the development code, partial ports
-to Unix (see \k{faq-unix}) and the Mac OS (see \k{faq-mac-port}).
-are under way.
+Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on full Win32
+systems and Unix. \q{Win32} includes Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it
+includes Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
+
+In the development code, a partial port to the Mac OS (see
+\k{faq-mac-port}) is under way.
Currently PuTTY does \e{not} run on Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}),
and it does not quite run on the Win32s environment under Windows
3.1 (see \k{faq-win31}).
We do not have release-quality ports for any other systems at the
-present time. If anyone told you we had a Mac port, or an iPaq port,
+present time. If anyone told you we had an EPOC port, or an iPaq port,
or any other port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
-\S{faq-unix}{Question} Will there be a port to Unix?
+\S{faq-unix}{Question} Is there a port to Unix?
+
+As of 0.54, there are Unix ports of most of the traditional PuTTY
+tools, and also one entirely new application.
+
+If you look at the source release, you should find a \c{unix}
+subdirectory containing \c{Makefile.gtk}, which should build you Unix
+ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, and also
+\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same
+terminal emulation as PuTTY. We do not yet have a Unix port of
+Pageant.
-It's currently being worked on. If you look at the nightly source
-snapshots, you should find a \c{unix} subdirectory, which should
-build you Unix ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PSCP, PSFTP, and
-also \c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the
-same terminal emulation as PuTTY. We do not yet have Unix ports of
-Pageant or PuTTYgen.
+If you don't have Gtk, you should still be able to build the
+command-line tools.
+
+Note that Unix PuTTY has mostly only been tested on Linux so far;
+portability problems such as BSD-style ptys or different header file
+requirements are expected.
\S{faq-wince}{Question} Will there be a port to Windows CE or PocketPC?
\S{faq-psftp-slow}{Question} PSFTP transfers files much slower than PSCP.
-We believe this is because the SFTP and SSH2 protocols are less
-efficient at bulk data transfer than SCP and SSH1, because every
-block of data transferred requires an acknowledgment from the far
-end. It would in theory be possible to queue several blocks of data
-to get round this speed problem, but as yet we haven't done the
-coding. If you really want this fixed, feel free to offer to help.
+The throughput of PSFTP 0.54 should be much better than 0.53b and
+prior; we've added code to the SFTP backend to queue several blocks
+of data rather than waiting for an acknowledgement for each. (The
+SCP backend did not suffer from this performance issue because SCP
+is a much simpler protocol.)
\S{faq-bce}{Question} When I run full-colour applications, I see
areas of black space where colour ought to be.
You almost certainly need to enable the \q{Use background colour to
erase screen} setting in the Terminal panel. Note that if you do
-this in mid-session, it won't take effect until you reset the
+this in mid-session, it may not take effect until you reset the
terminal (see \k{faq-resetterm}).
\S{faq-resetterm}{Question} When I change some terminal settings,
the terminal is reset (by server action, or by you choosing \q{Reset
Terminal} from the System menu) the defaults are restored.
-If you want to change one of these options in the middle of a
-session, you will find that the change does not immediately take
-effect. It will only take effect once you reset the terminal.
+In versions 0.53b and prior, if you change one of these options in
+the middle of a session, you will find that the change does not
+immediately take effect. It will only take effect once you reset
+the terminal.
+
+In version 0.54, the behaviour has changed - changes to these
+settings take effect immediately.
\S{faq-altgr}{Question} I can't type characters that require the
AltGr key.
We already have some, thanks.
+\S{faq-link}{Question} Would you link to my web site from the PuTTY
+web site?
+
+Only if the content of your web page is of definite direct interest
+to PuTTY users. If your content is unrelated, or only tangentially
+related, to PuTTY, then the link would simply be advertising for
+you.
+
+One very nice effect of the Google ranking mechanism is that by and
+large, the most popular web sites get the highest rankings. This
+means that when an ordinary person does a search, the top item in
+the search is very likely to be a high-quality site or the site they
+actually wanted, rather than the site which paid the most money for
+its ranking.
+
+The PuTTY web site is held in high esteem by Google, for precisely
+this reason: lots of people have linked to it simply because they
+like PuTTY, without us ever having to ask anyone to link to us. We
+feel that it would be an abuse of this esteem to use it to boost the
+ranking of random advertisers' web sites. If you want your web site
+to have a high Google ranking, we'd prefer that you achieve this the
+way we did - by being good enough at what you do that people will
+link to you simply because they like you.
+
+If you have software based on PuTTY, or specifically designed to
+interoperate with PuTTY, or in some other way of genuine interest to
+PuTTY users, then we will probably be happy to add a link to you on
+our Links page. And if you're running a mirror of the PuTTY web
+site, we're \e{definitely} interested.
+
\S{faq-sourceforge}{Question} Why don't you move PuTTY to
SourceForge?
projects / u / mdw / putty / blobdiff