On Jan 26 18:12, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:07 PM Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Microsoft hijacked the sshd service name without asking. > > How many people use the SSH daemon from Cygwin, versus using only the > client? I did some work with the daemon with rsync and tar, trying to > link it to Linux backup systems. It was unreliable due to anti-virus > interfering with warning when upgraded, and the workarounds being > eliminated from the anti-virus software. As a server, it also had > problsm doing scp, sftp, or rsync reliably due to Windows file > locking, so it wasn't as effective or useful as one might nope. In other words, you made wrong assumptions and blame the Cygwin server for that? Do you honestly expect the Win32 OpenSSH from Microsoft doesn't have the exact same problems in the exact same situation? After all, Windows file locking is at is is (it's not used by Cygwin processes, btw., which use POSIX or BSD advisory file locking). > In other words, is this a big loss if Microsoft accidentally kills > Cygwin sshd ? Yes. Cygwin is a complete POSIX environment and the sshd server is a part of it for more than 16 years. I'm not opposed to the Win32 OpenSSH from Microsoft, it's a nice thing in fact. But it doesn't invalidate the usefulness of Cygwin's sshd. > Is Microsoft going to use port 22? If there is a > conflict, will CygWin defer to Microsoft as the vendor and use an > alternate port? The people I know from the Cygwin ML disabled Win32 sshd and started the Cygwin sshd service instead. And ultimately port 22 is just a default port. There's sshd_config. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
