(That's Halibut's non-breaking hyphen.)
Triggered by noticing that the changes in 54f6fefe61 happened to come
out badly in the text-only rendering, but I noticed there were many more
instances in the main docs where non-breaking hyphens would help.
With Google Groups severing its connection to Usenet today[*], newsgroup
access will require what today are quite specialised tools; and even
before that (and before the recent spam floods, which will hopefully now
cease) they didn't seem super useful as a way of getting PuTTY support.
[*] https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
I've just removed the whole section, since we couldn't think of an
obvious consensus replacement venue -- certainly not one where we hang
out ourselves. There's Stackmumble and places like that, but we didn't
think of anywhere concrete to point to.
This has led to some rather unsatisfactorily vague 'seek help from some
public forum' wording in places, which could perhaps use revision.
Correcting a source file name in the docs just now reminded me that
I've seen a lot of outdated source file names elsewhere in the code,
due to all the reorganisation since we moved to cmake. Here's a giant
pass of trying to make them all accurate again.
The number of people has been steadily increasing who read our source
code with an editor that thinks tab stops are 4 spaces apart, as
opposed to the traditional tty-derived 8 that the PuTTY code expects.
So I've been wondering for ages about just fixing it, and switching to
a spaces-only policy throughout the code. And I recently found out
about 'git blame -w', which should make this change not too disruptive
for the purposes of source-control archaeology; so perhaps now is the
time.
While I'm at it, I've also taken the opportunity to remove all the
trailing spaces from source lines (on the basis that git dislikes
them, and is the only thing that seems to have a strong opinion one
way or the other).
Apologies to anyone downstream of this code who has complicated patch
sets to rebase past this change. I don't intend it to be needed again.
- Mention public key authentication
- Define and describe the "terminal window"
- Mention trust sigils
- Describe here the lack of feedback in password prompts, as well as in
the FAQ
While it's still true, the link to Winsock 2 is dead, our standard
release builds don't run on Win95 any more, and it's certainly not
frequently asked.
- I haven't heard of OpenSSH/OpenSSL mismatches being a common problem
for a long time. Specific advice about OpenSSH 3.1/3.4 seems unlikely
to be useful these days.
- "Incorrect MAC received on packet" doesn't seem to be a common
problem these days, and if anyone encounters it, the words in the
"Errors" bit of the docs seem adequate without a FAQ entry as well.
Conflicts in the FAQ are fixed by incorporating Jacob's rewritten
post-0.68 version. (But owing to considerable git confusion I haven't
managed to get his name on to this commit anywhere.)
Several places in the docs were labelled for review because they need
to change when 0.68's feature set comes in - no SSH-2 to SSH-1
fallback any more, but on the other hand, Unix Pageant now exists.
(In a XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE form.)
Also, note the effect of compilation with different Visual Studio
versions on Windows version compatibility in the source README, for the
sake of having it written down somewhere.
They were there mainly to distinguish from 16-bit Windows, which hasn't
been a thing since before a noticeable fraction of the userbase were
born, probably. These days the obvious comparison is with 64-bit
Windows.
Also tweak some wording to reflect that official PuTTY executables are
not necessarily 32-bit any more, and add some XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE
in the same vein.
The UI now only has "1" and "2" options for SSH protocol version, which
behave like the old "1 only" and "2 only" options; old
SSH-N-with-fallback settings are interpreted as SSH-N-only.
This prevents any attempt at a protocol downgrade attack.
Most users should see no difference; those poor souls who still have to
work with SSH-1 equipment now have to explicitly opt in.
I think the deterministic DSA system we've been using for ages can now
be considered proven in use, not to mention the fact that RFC 6979 and
the Ed25519 spec both give variants on the same idea. So I've removed
the 'don't use DSA if you can avoid it' warning.
The aim is to try to reduce the incidence of the two least helpful
classes of those reports: the ones which have just got mismatched
checksum files, and the ones which don't tell us the information that
would help.
