From 59adac11d6ca5ab82dfed4d051d8a6dfebb5c125 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: simon Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:27:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- doc/faq.but | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but index 3459826f..b24a408f 100644 --- 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 -- 2.11.0