Talk:OpenSSH

message: There is a wikibook available under a CC license that can be linked to for Further Reading.  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/OpenSSH
What is needed to bring it up to the level where it can be included here? [18 Nov 2012]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.52.2 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks as further reading

message: That discussion page was a horrible mess, it needed a reboot.  I have given it one.  Please remember when posting to add your comment to the bottom of the page, or under what you're replying to, or else it becomes garbled, aslo, sign your comments using the four tildes so that it is easier to tell who's said what.  74.13.54.124 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaned up 

message: My understanding was that openssh.COM was the official domain name for the OpenSSH project, and openssh.ORG is not under the developers' control. Does anyone know why the article shows the website as http://www.openssh.org ? Both domains point to the same site at the moment, but it seems to me the article should really be showing the official domain name... EclecticMonk (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try using nslookup, it's not so hard.  74.13.60.58 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While they currently point to the same IP address, the concern was over the domain name ownership.  Try using whois, it's not so hard. --Karnesky (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you've updated it; fantastic. I probably should have just gone in and changed it, but I'm new here and lacking confidence :-) EclecticMonk (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  openssh.com vs. openssh.org 

message: If you use OpenSSH and SSHFS for networking on Linux, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!
If you want variations on this box please leave me a note here and I will make them up. -Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Hello, !  Regarding  that added new features for not-yet-released OpenSSH 6.8, in general we should stick to describing already released versions; as summed up in , the section is called "Versions", not "Future versions".  Also, the fact that code for some feature has been committed into project's source code repository doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be part of the next release it can always be reverted for some reason before 6.8 is actually released.  As we know, the content you've added isn't lost, and can be easily restored once 6.8 is released.  Hoping that you agree, I'm open to discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, !  No, I do not agree; please see WP:FUTURE:  It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.   If you remove valid stuff from the article, it is lost.  We cannot babysit the article to make sure that the information is placed back when the new release is released, such manual process and manual reminders and backnotes just don't make any sense in the context of Wikipedia, and are just not scalable, not to mention that they impact the ability of the non-English Wikipedias to have enough time to pick up any such information.  Moreover, if you personally feel that "Versions" means "Past Versions" and can under no circumstance include upcoming ones, then you should move the new content under a new "New/Upcoming Versions" section, instead of removing it outright (however, I think such interpretation and the implied necessity of a "Future versions" section seem to be inconsistent with the no-branch release model of both OpenSSH and OpenBSD). MureninC (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't get me wrong, but you should speak for yourself I do "babysit" articles, by reviewing all edits and maintaining my own to-do list that contains various tasks.  Also, no "babysitting" almost always ends up in low-quality articles, software projects, you name it.  With that in mind, you should be aware that I would be returning the content once OpenSSH 6.8 is released, if it would be still relevant of course.  Mentioning scalability as an argument makes no sense whatsoever, as the rate at which substantial chunks of good-quality new content are added into Wikipedia (at least into computing-related articles) is quite low.  Oh, and by the way, Slashdot posts shouldn't be used as a reliable sources.  Anyway, I can also be careless to the same degree; thus, I can live with your addition to the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenSSH 6.8 features 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on OpenSSH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20020301095306/http://www.newsforge.com:80/article.pl?sid=01/02/16/1520247 to http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/02/16/1520247
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , all fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why Tatu Ylönen link redirect to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Shell_Protocol
: Hi,  Tatu Ylönen redirects back here because different people created a number of redirects redirecting to each other to facilitate searches (Tectia, Tatu Ylönen, may be more). I have removed the link on Tatu Ylönen because it does not serve any purpose, as you noticed. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatu Ylönen link