SSH Key generation question
in [General Linux]
|
From: Kenny McCormack on 21 Jun 2010 07:50 In article <87bpb47gye.fsf(a)mythtv.grymoire.com>, Maxwell Lol <nospam(a)com.invalid> wrote: >Todd <todd(a)invalid.com> writes: > >> On 06/20/2010 01:49 PM, Maxwell Lol wrote: >>> Todd<todd(a)invalid.com> writes: >>> >>>> I would have to point out that the workstation is the >>>> one who initiate the network packet as state=new, not the >>>> number cruncher. >>> >>> Wrong. >> >> Good luck with your firewall rules. > >Good luck with yours, as you fail to understand the concept of >client/server. Somebody needs to get back on their meds... -- > No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me, > why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere. CLC in a nutshell.
From: Kenny McCormack on 21 Jun 2010 07:54 In article <87k4ps7h70.fsf(a)mythtv.grymoire.com>, Maxwell Lol <nospam(a)com.invalid> wrote: .... >> The workstation's X portion is only acting as a server >> in a micro sense. > >It is acting as a server in a server sense. > >There is no micro/macro issue. You do not understand the process. Once again, you are playing the "If you disagree, you must not undersand" game. In this game, it becomes impossible to dislike something, since anyone who dislikes the thing in question is dismissed as not understanding it. I.e., get this through your thick skull: No matter how many times you (and others like you) "explain" it, the fact remains that it *is* "backwards", vis a vie (most of) the rest of the world. And, of course, I must once again state that being "backwards" is not a moral failing. -- (This discussion group is about C, ...) Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood traumas of the participants...
From: J G Miller on 21 Jun 2010 09:25 On Monday, 21 June 2010 11:54:21h +0000, Kenny McCormack droned on even more: > I.e., get this through your thick skull: No matter how many times you > (and others like you) "explain" it, the fact remains that it *is* > "backwards", vis a vie (most of) the rest of the world. So tell me, if you install the openSSH daemon on your workstation PC in order to allow users on other machines to connect to your PC, is your workstation PC still the client and not a server in the context of the SSH remote login?
From: J G Miller on 21 Jun 2010 09:28 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:11:39 -0700, Todd wrote: > The functional outcome is that you are remotely > running a process on another/remote computer. WRONG! The xroach program which you are running is running on the CPU of the local machine. It is only the visual output of that program running on your local machine which is being displayed on the remote machine. And the program which is running on the remote machine to provide the display is not running as your userid either, unlike the xroach program. > Common conversion states that the remote computer is the > server and you are the client NO! Common conversion does not state any such thing. If you install openSSH server on your desktop machine to allow remote logins, is your desktop machine the client or the server in the context of openSSH logins to your machine?
From: J G Miller on 21 Jun 2010 09:31
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:43:16 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote: > Both machines are servers. > ONe is a computer server. > One is a display server. Todd has a mental block. He refuses to accept that a desktop PC can run a daemon and act as a server because it is local and not in a rack in an air conditioned warehouse. |