SSH Key generation question
in [General Linux]
|
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:35 On 06/20/2010 07:15 AM, John Hasler wrote: > Kenny McCormack writes: >> What we are saying is that it *is* confusing to "newbies". People do >> get it - it's not rocket science, as they say - but it is confusing at >> first. > > Telling them that X is "backwards" just confuses them more in the long > run. That is not my experience. Myself or my customers. All long time ago in this newsgroup, someone kind individual explained it to me this way and I have understood it ever since. The response was, yes it is backwards. They call it a server because ... Without that response, I still would still be confused.
From: John Hasler on 20 Jun 2010 15:44 Todd writes: > Without that response, I still would still be confused. It's clear that you still are. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:52 On 06/19/2010 08:35 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > It's not just their right, it *is* right! It just *seems* backwards to > people used to thinking in terms of "big machine == server" instead of > the more accurate "listening machine == server". Both machines are listening. My "beef" with their calling the workstation the server, is that the workstation is only displaying results that is asked for from a network connection that is established. The workstation sends out the first SYN packet. The workstation is not blindly displaying data from anywhere. It is only displaying information from requests it generated from a machine it asked to generate the information. I think we are looking at a little picture, big picture thing here. Little picture: the X11 folks are saying it is a server because it is listening for rendering from somewhere else. Therfore it is a server. Big picture: the workstation is listening for rendering because of something it requested from another computer. Therefore it is client. The little picture does not take into account why those rendering magically show up for it to be displayed. All of the renderings that show up on the workstation were as a result of something the workstation initiated. > ...which is why I usually try to be nice when I explain that it's not > actually backwards. :) You do a good job of explaining. I admire that you can follow it all and explain it to the rest of us. I just disagree with their choice of terminology. -T
From: Kenny McCormack on 20 Jun 2010 16:00 In article <87pqzlqyk7.fsf(a)thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Todd writes: >> Without that response, I still would still be confused. > >It's clear that you still are. Again, and this is no insult - it is just a simple obvseration - you need to either get back on your meds (or take a Dale Carnegie course). -- (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: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 16:00
On 06/20/2010 12:44 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Todd writes: >> Without that response, I still would still be confused. > > It's clear that you still are. Because the workstation is "listening" for graphic rendering is why X11 calls it a server. Sending keystrokes and mouse movements/clicks that cause these renderings is why I call it a client. The workstation asked for the renderings. The workstation is not dealing with "random happenstance". "random happenstance" is the job of a server. What part do I not understand? Disagreeing with ones terminology does not mean I do not understand what he is trying to say. -T |