diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but index 44a2fcf5..d7ff474e 100644 --- a/doc/faq.but +++ b/doc/faq.but @@ -45,10 +45,11 @@ implemented. \S{faq-ssh2}{Question} Does PuTTY support SSH-2? -Yes. SSH-2 support has been available in PuTTY since version 0.50. +Yes. SSH-2 support has been available in PuTTY since version 0.50 in +2000. -Public key authentication (both RSA and DSA) in SSH-2 is new in -version 0.52. +Public key authentication (both RSA and DSA) in SSH-2 was new in +version 0.52 in 2002. \S{faq-ssh2-keyfmt}{Question} Does PuTTY support reading OpenSSH or \cw{ssh.com} SSH-2 private key files? @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ a method of achieving the same effect. \S{faq-fullscreen}{Question} Does PuTTY support full-screen mode, like a DOS box? -Yes; this is a new feature in version 0.52. +Yes; this was added in version 0.52, in 2002. \S{faq-password-remember}{Question} Does PuTTY have the ability to \i{remember my password} so I don't have to type it every time? @@ -194,9 +195,9 @@ available if anyone else wants to try it. Unfortunately not. -Until recently, this was a limitation of the file transfer protocols: -the SCP and SFTP protocols had no notion of transferring a file in -anything other than binary mode. (This is still true of SCP.) +This was a limitation of the file transfer protocols as originally +specified: the SCP and SFTP protocols had no notion of transferring +a file in anything other than binary mode. (This is still true of SCP.) The current draft protocol spec of SFTP proposes a means of implementing ASCII transfer. At some point PSCP/PSFTP may implement @@ -207,12 +208,11 @@ this proposal. The eventual goal is for PuTTY to be a multi-platform program, able to run on at least Windows, Mac OS 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 was for this -porting layer to evolve naturally as part of the process of doing -the first port; a Unix port has now been released and the plan -seems to be working so far. +PuTTY has been gaining a generalised porting 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 has now been +released and the plan seems to be working so far. \S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist? @@ -245,15 +245,21 @@ on the \S{faq-unix}{Question} \I{Unix version}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. +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. There are a couple of ways of building it, including the usual \c{configure}/\c{make}; see the file \c{README} -in the source distribution. This should build you Unix -ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, Pageant, and also -\i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same +in the source distribution. This should build you: + +\b Unix ports of PuTTY, Plink, PSCP, and PSFTP, which work pretty much +the same as their Windows counterparts; + +\b Command-line versions of PuTTYgen and Pageant, whose user interface +is quite different to the Windows GUI versions; + +\b \i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same terminal emulation as PuTTY. If you don't have \i{Gtk}, you should still be able to build the @@ -318,7 +324,7 @@ unfinished. If any OS X and/or GTK programming experts are keen to have a finished version of this, we urge them to help out with some of the remaining -problems! +problems! See the TODO list in \c{unix/gtkapp.c} in the source code. \S{faq-epoc}{Question} Will there be a port to EPOC? @@ -1536,7 +1542,14 @@ a mismatch. Similarly, the development snapshot binaries go with the development snapshot checksums, and so on. (We've colour-coded the download page in an effort to reduce this confusion a bit.) -If you have double-checked that, and you still think there's a real +Another thing to watch out for: as of 0.71, executables like +\c{putty.exe} come in two flavours for each platform: the standalone +versions on the website, each of which contains embedded help, and the +versions installed by the installer, which use a separate help file +also in the installer. We provide checksums for both; the latter are +indicated with \cq{(installer version)} after the filename. + +If you have double-checked all that, and you still think there's a real mismatch, then please send us a report carefully quoting everything relevant: