Probably about time we mentioned the nascent Unix port in the FAQ.

Not that I desperately want to shout about it just yet, but I feel a
bit bad about the FAQ saying `we don't have a Unix port, anyone who
told you so was wrong'. :-)

git-svn-id: svn://svn.tartarus.org/sgt/putty@2185 cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e

diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but
index 3459826..b24a408 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/faq.but
+++ b/doc/faq.but
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.36 2002/10/10 14:39:35 jacob Exp $
+\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.37 2002/11/02 16:27:17 simon Exp $
 
 \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ
 
@@ -162,36 +162,44 @@ happens.
 \H{faq-ports} Ports to other operating systems
 
 The eventual goal is for PuTTY to be a multi-platform program, able
-to run on at least Windows, MacOS and Unix. Whether this will
-actually ever happen I have no idea, but it is the plan. A Mac port
-has been started, but is only half-finished and currently not moving
-very fast.
+to run on at least Windows, MacOS and Unix.
 
 Porting will become easier once PuTTY has a generalised porting
 layer, drawing a clear line between platform-dependent and
-platform-independent code. The general intention is for this porting
-layer to evolve naturally as part of the process of doing the first
-port. One particularly nasty part of this will be separating the
-many configuration options into platform-dependent and
-platform-independent ones; for example, the options controlling when
-the Windows System menu appears will be pretty much meaningless
-under X11 or perhaps other windowing systems, whereas Telnet Passive
-Mode is universal and shouldn't need to be specified once for each
-platform.
+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.
 
 \S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist?
 
-Currently, PuTTY only runs on full Win32 systems. This includes
-Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it includes Windows NT, Windows 2000 and
-Windows XP.
+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, a partial port
+to Unix is under way (see \k{faq-unix}).
 
-It does \e{not} include Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}), and it does
-not quite include the Win32s environment under Windows 3.1 (see
-\k{faq-win31}).
+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 ports for any other systems at the present time. If
-anyone told you we had a Unix port, or an iPaq port, or any other
-port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
+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,
+or any other port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
+
+\S{faq-unix}{Question} Will there be a port to Unix?
+
+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 a Unix port of Plink, and also \c{pterm} - an
+\cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same terminal emulation
+as PuTTY.
+
+It isn't yet clear whether we will bother combining the terminal
+emulator and network back end into the same process, to provide a
+Unix port of the full GUI form of PuTTY. It wouldn't be as useful a
+thing on Unix as it would be on Windows; its major value would
+probably be as a pathfinding effort for other ports. If anyone
+really wants it, we'd be interested to know why :-)
 
 \S{faq-wince}{Question} Will there be a port to Windows CE or PocketPC?
 
@@ -227,14 +235,6 @@ has been static for some time and the main PuTTY code has moved on,
 so it's not clear how quickly development would resume even if
 developer effort were available.
 
-\S{faq-unix}{Question} Will there be a port to Unix?
-
-I hope so, if only so that I can have an \cw{xterm}-like program
-that supports exactly the same terminal emulation as PuTTY. If and
-when we do do a Unix port, it will have a local-terminal back end so
-it can be used like an \cw{xterm}, rather than only being usable as
-a network utility.
-
 \S{faq-epoc}{Question} Will there be a port to EPOC?
 
 I hope so, but given that ports aren't really progressing very fast