I think that's a good observation. I think this conflation has also happened because there are very few compatible clients and servers. (Actually, I'm not aware of any other implementation of the mosh-server component besides mosh).
Would "mosh protocol" be an appropriate compromise between accuracy and clarity? Statements like the following would be, I suspect, pretty easily understood by people looking for remote access clients: "Run multiple concurrent terminal sessions on any device you own, using the SSH, Telnet and Mosh protocols" On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:15 PM Jim Cheetham <jim.cheet...@otago.ac.nz> wrote: > Part of the broader miscommunication here (assuming good faith, of course) > seems to be around the use of protocol names vs product names; using "SSH" > and "Telnet" to refer to protocols and not products. The protocol name SSP > isn't well-known, and currently the public recognise only the name of the > canonical server software, which is Mosh. > > In practice, people set up "an SSH server" and don't tend to remember the > name of the actual server software ... OpenSSH for example, or > OpenSSH-Portable, which most Linux distributions are actually using :-) > > Mosh's own website says "Mosh is a replacement for SSH", which conflates > the software with the protocol. Perhaps "SSP is a replacement for SSH"? Of > course, SSP is capable of more than that as far as I can see, SSP isn't > actually a replacement for SSH, but the Mosh application uses SSP in order > to replace users of SSH ... > > Naming things seems to be one of the hardest things in computer science :-) > https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html > > And "mosh" is such an excellent name :-) > > -jim > > Excerpts from Keith Winstein's message of August 9, 2017 11:51 am: > > I'm happy to explain our position further, and maybe you can understand > why > > this is important to us. Mosh is a piece of software, like OpenSSH or > > Chrome. The protocol is called SSP (State Synchronization Protocol). You > > have told us that your program is not derived from Mosh, so we really > don't > > want your company to call it Mosh. It's nothing personal -- but users are > > better served knowing the difference. We had a bad experience with > somebody > > writing what they thought was a compatible implementation, and users > > getting confused and blaming us. So we don't want users to think they are > > running Mosh when they are running somebody else's application. > > > > We would be fine with you making statements like, "Termius is > > mosh-compatible" or "Termius has a mosh-compatible client" or even > "Termius > > works with Mosh servers." They key thing here is that it's fine for > Termius > > to claim mosh-compatibility, or to work *with* Mosh servers. It shouldn't > > claim to *be* or to include Mosh, because it doesn't. > > > > Yes, the text "SSH, Telnet, and Mosh in your pocket" and "... with SSH, > > Telnet, and Mosh." appears on your current website, https://termius.com. > > You can visit it yourself to see. > > -- > Jim Cheetham, Information Security, University of Otago, Dunedin, N.Z. > ✉ jim.cheet...@otago.ac.nz ☏ +64 3 470 4670 <+64%203-470%204670> ☏ > m +64 21 279 4670 <+64%2021%20279%204670> > ⚷ OpenPGP: B50F BE3B D49B 3A8A 9CC3 8966 9374 82CD C982 0605 > _______________________________________________ > mosh-devel mailing list > mosh-devel@mit.edu > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mosh-devel >
_______________________________________________ mosh-devel mailing list mosh-devel@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mosh-devel
