nhyatt/putty-source
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.tartarus.org/simon/putty.git synced 2025-03-22 14:39:24 -05:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

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

Browse Source 
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'. :-)

[originally from svn r2185]
This commit is contained in:
Simon Tatham 2002-11-02 16:27:17 +00:00
parent 82e447c1d0
commit d54e79bde6
1 changed files with 31 additions and 31 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

62
doc/faq.but
View File

@ -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 \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ
@ -162,36 +162,44 @@ happens.
\H{faq-ports} Ports to other operating systems \H{faq-ports} Ports to other operating systems
The eventual goal is for PuTTY to be a multi-platform program, able 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 to run on at least Windows, MacOS and Unix.
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.
Porting will become easier once PuTTY has a generalised porting Porting will become easier once PuTTY has a generalised porting
layer, drawing a clear line between platform-dependent and layer, drawing a clear line between platform-dependent and
platform-independent code. The general intention is for this porting platform-independent code. The general intention was for this
layer to evolve naturally as part of the process of doing the first porting layer to evolve naturally as part of the process of doing
port. One particularly nasty part of this will be separating the the first port; a Unix port is now under way and the plan seems to
many configuration options into platform-dependent and be working so far.
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.
\S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist? \S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist?
Currently, PuTTY only runs on full Win32 systems. This includes Currently, release versions of PuTTY only run on full Win32 systems.
Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it includes Windows NT, Windows 2000 and This includes Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it includes Windows NT,
Windows XP. 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 Currently PuTTY does \e{not} run on Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}),
not quite include the Win32s environment under Windows 3.1 (see and it does not quite run on the Win32s environment under Windows
\k{faq-win31}). 3.1 (see \k{faq-win31}).
We do not have ports for any other systems at the present time. If We do not have release-quality ports for any other systems at the
anyone told you we had a Unix port, or an iPaq port, or any other present time. If anyone told you we had a Mac port, or an iPaq port,
port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't. 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? \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 so it's not clear how quickly development would resume even if
developer effort were available. 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? \S{faq-epoc}{Question} Will there be a port to EPOC?
I hope so, but given that ports aren't really progressing very fast I hope so, but given that ports aren't really progressing very fast