Professional Web Applications Themes

OpenSSH - SCO

There was a CERT alert regarding OpenSSH three days ago. I've prepared a new archive of binaries for OSR 5.0.6; they will also function on OSR 5.0.5. Get it from: ftp.jpr.com:/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2   README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6 of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002 and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003, built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003. -- JP...

  1. #1

    Default OpenSSH

    There was a CERT alert regarding OpenSSH three days ago. I've prepared
    a new archive of binaries for OSR 5.0.6; they will also function on OSR
    5.0.5. Get it from:

    ftp.jpr.com:/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2
     

    README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6
    of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002
    and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003,
    built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003.

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Jean-Pierre Radley typed (on Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:37:41PM -0400):
    | There was a CERT alert regarding OpenSSH three days ago. I've prepared
    | a new archive of binaries for OSR 5.0.6; they will also function on OSR
    | 5.0.5. Get it from:
    |
    | ftp.jpr.com:/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2
    |
    | >From the README:
    |
    | README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6
    | of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002
    | and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003,
    | built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003.
    |

    Change that: the archive is a build of OpenSSH version 3.7.1p1 of Sep
    16, 2003.

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Why don't you replace those "god awful" bzip files with a real zip file such
    as gzip or plain old .Z so you don't force others to adapt to your
    preferences. How in the world do you justify requiring the use of bzip. I
    am sure that the addtional space savings is nil.

    wj




    "Jean-Pierre Radley" <com> wrote in message
    news:jpr.com... 
    >
    > README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6
    > of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002
    > and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003,
    > built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003.
    >
    > --
    > JP[/ref]


    willjay Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, willjay wrote:
     

    Why don't you create your own binaries and make them available to others?

    Did it ever occur to you that J-P R. does not have to justify the use
    of bzip?
     
    > >
    > > README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6
    > > of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002
    > > and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003,
    > > built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003.
    > >
    > > --
    > > JP[/ref]
    >
    >
    >[/ref]

    Joe Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Well if you can't extarct the binary it's no good to anyone. Nobody asked
    him to justify anything. I am making a requuest, and, further more if I
    did make an exe it wouldn't be in a format nobody can use. I asked him to
    make .Z or gzip available. Does it make since to make an exe available in a
    format that practically nobody uses? And further more, I have yet to hear
    anyone state a single good reason for using bzip, other than just because
    it's there and they can.

    wj


    "Joe Dunning" <com> wrote in message
    news:.. [/ref]
    such [/ref]

    >
    > Why don't you create your own binaries and make them available to others?
    >
    > Did it ever occur to you that J-P R. does not have to justify the use
    > of bzip?
    > [/ref][/ref]
    prepared [/ref][/ref]
    OSR 
    > >
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >[/ref]


    willjay Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    "willjay" <com> wrote in message news:<9h6bb.8478$bellsouth.net>... 

    here's a reason:
    Because some people use it to package things that you might want.

    bzip2 compresses almost twice as well as plain old compress. That is
    enough reason to use somethings else. since it's no harder to install
    bzip2 than gzip, and bzip2 compresses a little better, might as well
    use that. If gzip came stock with the system that might be a
    reasonable argument because it is almost as good, but it doesn't.

    Size does matter. especially to servers (like jpr's) that dole out
    files to many users (like you). It is to the interest of everyone who
    uses the net if everyone does whatever they can to not waste the
    bandwidth.
    Size also matyters when a customers box does not have a fast net
    connection. I still have to cu to some sites and use uuencode and %put
    %take to transfer files at 9600. Size matters a LOT there. (and the
    first thing I do in such cases is install that godawful kermit or
    rz/sz that no one can use so that future transfers are faster, fault
    tolerant, resumable, easier, ...)

    Here is 3 commands to get both gzip and bzip2 (and wget in the
    bargain) all at once:
    rftp -g -bh pcunix.com /pub/bkw setup_gnu
    chmod 755 setup_gnu
    ./setup_gnu gzip-1.2.4 bzip2-0.9.5d

    What, you want to avoid using a script some guy whos morals, hygene,
    and ual proclivities you don't trust wrote? Ok, here is a slightly
    longer recipe that uses only stock commands:

    cd /tmp
    rftp -g -bh ftp2.caldera.com /pub/skunkware/osr5/vols
    bzip2-0.9.5d-VOLS.tar
    tar xvf bz*.tar
    custom -i -p SKUNK99:Bzip2 -z /tmp
    rm VOL.*

    but wait, it's even easier...
    any box that can even *run* openssh shipped with a skunkware cd. Just
    pop the cd in, run custom, point click drool.

    If you had a little different mindset about stuff like this, and were
    open to installing things like that godawful wget that no one can use
    instead of good ole ftp, you could be installing things with *one*
    line:

    wget -q -O - ftp://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
    or
    wget -q -O - http://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -

    wam bam thank you maam

    I think you have it backwards as to what is handy and what is a pain
    in the neck.

    As a person who also provides binaries:
    I build it and package it for my own convenience. It is most
    convenient for me to install the bins I built using the single line
    like above. Why should I work harder than I already have for you?
    Unless you are sending me a check?

    And as a person who sometimes needs binaries:
    If I need a binary, then I don't care *how* it's packaged. I'm just
    grateful someone somewhere not only built the thing I need, but were
    even nice enough to make it publicly available so I could find it and
    get it. Complain about how it's packaged? Unbeleivable...

    But... definitely there is such a thing as inconvenient recipes to
    getting and installing some things. So just for the sake of argument,
    suppose something *was* packaged so horribly that it was a real pain
    in the neck chore to unpack and install? I still wouldn't bother the
    person who provided it. I'd just go through whatever hell is necessary
    the one time, then repackage it in whatever way I thought was more
    sensible and make that publicly available somewhere myself. (as long
    as we are talking about freely redistributable software)


     [/ref]
    > such [/ref]
    > I 
    > >
    > > Why don't you create your own binaries and make them available to others?
    > >
    > > Did it ever occur to you that J-P R. does not have to justify the use
    > > of bzip?
    > > [/ref]
    > prepared [/ref]
    > OSR 
    > >[/ref][/ref]
    Brian Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Nobody uses plain old compress, and I doubt that bzipcompresses all that
    much better than gzip And any savings you might see in the 'little bit' of
    extra compression is eaten up on my maching buy having to have both gzip and
    bzip and probably (f-inkzip) tommorow installed.

    What's really going on here, is somebody is really proud that they we able
    to get bzip to compile on openserver and now to justify their effort they
    are craming it down our throats.

    wj


    "Brian K. White" <com> wrote in message
    news:google.com... 
    news:<9h6bb.8478$bellsouth.net>... [/ref]
    asked [/ref]
    I [/ref]
    to [/ref]
    in a [/ref]
    hear [/ref]
    because 
    >
    > here's a reason:
    > Because some people use it to package things that you might want.
    >
    > bzip2 compresses almost twice as well as plain old compress. That is
    > enough reason to use somethings else. since it's no harder to install
    > bzip2 than gzip, and bzip2 compresses a little better, might as well
    > use that. If gzip came stock with the system that might be a
    > reasonable argument because it is almost as good, but it doesn't.
    >
    > Size does matter. especially to servers (like jpr's) that dole out
    > files to many users (like you). It is to the interest of everyone who
    > uses the net if everyone does whatever they can to not waste the
    > bandwidth.
    > Size also matyters when a customers box does not have a fast net
    > connection. I still have to cu to some sites and use uuencode and %put
    > %take to transfer files at 9600. Size matters a LOT there. (and the
    > first thing I do in such cases is install that godawful kermit or
    > rz/sz that no one can use so that future transfers are faster, fault
    > tolerant, resumable, easier, ...)
    >
    > Here is 3 commands to get both gzip and bzip2 (and wget in the
    > bargain) all at once:
    > rftp -g -bh pcunix.com /pub/bkw setup_gnu
    > chmod 755 setup_gnu
    > ./setup_gnu gzip-1.2.4 bzip2-0.9.5d
    >
    > What, you want to avoid using a script some guy whos morals, hygene,
    > and ual proclivities you don't trust wrote? Ok, here is a slightly
    > longer recipe that uses only stock commands:
    >
    > cd /tmp
    > rftp -g -bh ftp2.caldera.com /pub/skunkware/osr5/vols
    > bzip2-0.9.5d-VOLS.tar
    > tar xvf bz*.tar
    > custom -i -p SKUNK99:Bzip2 -z /tmp
    > rm VOL.*
    >
    > but wait, it's even easier...
    > any box that can even *run* openssh shipped with a skunkware cd. Just
    > pop the cd in, run custom, point click drool.
    >
    > If you had a little different mindset about stuff like this, and were
    > open to installing things like that godawful wget that no one can use
    > instead of good ole ftp, you could be installing things with *one*
    > line:
    >
    > wget -q -O - ftp://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
    > or
    > wget -q -O - http://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
    >
    > wam bam thank you maam
    >
    > I think you have it backwards as to what is handy and what is a pain
    > in the neck.
    >
    > As a person who also provides binaries:
    > I build it and package it for my own convenience. It is most
    > convenient for me to install the bins I built using the single line
    > like above. Why should I work harder than I already have for you?
    > Unless you are sending me a check?
    >
    > And as a person who sometimes needs binaries:
    > If I need a binary, then I don't care *how* it's packaged. I'm just
    > grateful someone somewhere not only built the thing I need, but were
    > even nice enough to make it publicly available so I could find it and
    > get it. Complain about how it's packaged? Unbeleivable...
    >
    > But... definitely there is such a thing as inconvenient recipes to
    > getting and installing some things. So just for the sake of argument,
    > suppose something *was* packaged so horribly that it was a real pain
    > in the neck chore to unpack and install? I still wouldn't bother the
    > person who provided it. I'd just go through whatever hell is necessary
    > the one time, then repackage it in whatever way I thought was more
    > sensible and make that publicly available somewhere myself. (as long
    > as we are talking about freely redistributable software)
    >
    >
    > [/ref][/ref]
    file [/ref][/ref]
    bzip. [/ref][/ref]
    others? 
    > > prepared [/ref][/ref]
    on [/ref][/ref]


    willjay Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    willjay wrote:
     

    JPR has been doing things for other people for years. He doesn't ask
    anything for it. He probably even has bzip for you.

    How long have you been doing things for other people and not asking
    money for it?

    --Tonni

    --
    Tony Earnshaw

    Millom kaksar eg litet kann trivast, millom jamningar helst er eg nøgd

    http://www.billy.demon.nl
    Mail: demon.nl

    Tony Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    willjay typed (on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:24:49AM -0400):
    | Nobody uses plain old compress, and I doubt that bzipcompresses all that
    | much better than gzip And any savings you might see in the 'little bit' of
    | extra compression is eaten up on my maching buy having to have both gzip and
    | bzip and probably (f-inkzip) tommorow installed.
    |
    | What's really going on here, is somebody is really proud that they we able
    | to get bzip to compile on openserver and now to justify their effort they
    | are craming it down our throats.

    I cram nothing, I don't top-post, and and OSR 5 bzip binary is available for
    download from ftp.jpr.com.

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    willjay wrote: 

    Let's examine that assertion. Here is a real-life example.
    I've renamed one of our standard downloadable files here.

    -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 2581859 Sep 20 21:48 File1
    -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 576472 Sep 20 21:48 File2.gz
    -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 465756 Sep 20 21:48 File3.bz2

    File1 is as normal. File2 is "gzip -9". File3 is "bzip2 -9".
    A calculator tells us that file3 is 110716 bytes smaller than
    File2, or ** 19.2% **.

    So using this example JP would save roughly 20% of his disk
    space and 20% of his bandwidth when you download, and you'd
    get to download almost 20% faster when you grab stuff from him.
     

    20% even on a one-time download is more than "a little bit".

    From a pure net space perspective, bzip2 on my OSR5 machine
    takes up 43928 bytes. So downloading ONE FILE is enough to
    offset the size of bzip (which would be only 20978 if it was
    gzipped when I downloaded it).

    A little perspective. Compressors have tradeoffs. The common
    theme of compressors is that they all decompress REALLY fast.

    Uniquely, each compressor trades compress time for compress ratio.
    A "bzip2 -9" file, while potentially being much smaller than a
    "gzip -9" file, can take significantly longer than gzip to
    compact. So JP is actually doing a bit more work on his end
    up front to save himself some disk space and bandwidth and to
    save you some download time.

    Note that ON AVERAGE bzip2 compresses better. I can probably
    come up with some examples where it doesn't, but it is
    probably better on more than 90% of all files.

    I remember when his ftp site ran from a modem. It doesn't any
    more but, like all of us older guys, we remember our roots and
    how to be as efficient as we can. JP has been doing it this
    way for years and sees no reason to change. And many OSR5
    customer DO still access his site from a modem. 

    I must respectfully disagree with your assertion.

    --
    Best Regards,
    Tom
    ---
    D. Thomas Podnar - President com
    Microlite Corporation 724-375-6711 Voice
    2315 Mill Street 724-375-6908 Fax
    Aliquippa PA 15001-2228 888-257-3343 Tollfree Sales
    +---------------------------------------------------------+
    |Makers of BackupEDGE 2.0 - Backup and Disaster Recovery |
    |Software for Unix and Linux Systems - Now With Encryption|
    |Supports: Tape Drives, Libraries, CD/DVD Optical Media |
    |http://www.microlite.com ftp://ftp.microlite.com|
    +---------------------------------------------------------+
    Tom Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Ok, I got the bzip2 binary and compressed ./etc/termcap with similar
    results. I guess 20% is a substantial saving. I did notice with a 9mb file
    that comrpession was seriously slow with the -9 swtich. But you only
    comopress it once.

    So I guess you've convinced me.
    wj




    "Tom Podnar" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > Let's examine that assertion. Here is a real-life example.
    > I've renamed one of our standard downloadable files here.
    >
    > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 2581859 Sep 20 21:48 File1
    > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 576472 Sep 20 21:48 File2.gz
    > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 465756 Sep 20 21:48 File3.bz2
    >
    > File1 is as normal. File2 is "gzip -9". File3 is "bzip2 -9".
    > A calculator tells us that file3 is 110716 bytes smaller than
    > File2, or ** 19.2% **.
    >
    > So using this example JP would save roughly 20% of his disk
    > space and 20% of his bandwidth when you download, and you'd
    > get to download almost 20% faster when you grab stuff from him.
    > [/ref]
    and 
    >
    > 20% even on a one-time download is more than "a little bit".
    >
    > From a pure net space perspective, bzip2 on my OSR5 machine
    > takes up 43928 bytes. So downloading ONE FILE is enough to
    > offset the size of bzip (which would be only 20978 if it was
    > gzipped when I downloaded it).
    >
    > A little perspective. Compressors have tradeoffs. The common
    > theme of compressors is that they all decompress REALLY fast.
    >
    > Uniquely, each compressor trades compress time for compress ratio.
    > A "bzip2 -9" file, while potentially being much smaller than a
    > "gzip -9" file, can take significantly longer than gzip to
    > compact. So JP is actually doing a bit more work on his end
    > up front to save himself some disk space and bandwidth and to
    > save you some download time.
    >
    > Note that ON AVERAGE bzip2 compresses better. I can probably
    > come up with some examples where it doesn't, but it is
    > probably better on more than 90% of all files.
    >
    > I remember when his ftp site ran from a modem. It doesn't any
    > more but, like all of us older guys, we remember our roots and
    > how to be as efficient as we can. JP has been doing it this
    > way for years and sees no reason to change. And many OSR5
    > customer DO still access his site from a modem. [/ref]
    able [/ref]
    they 
    >
    > I must respectfully disagree with your assertion.
    >
    > --
    > Best Regards,
    > Tom
    > ---
    > D. Thomas Podnar - President com
    > Microlite Corporation 724-375-6711 Voice
    > 2315 Mill Street 724-375-6908 Fax
    > Aliquippa PA 15001-2228 888-257-3343 Tollfree Sales
    > +---------------------------------------------------------+
    > |Makers of BackupEDGE 2.0 - Backup and Disaster Recovery |
    > |Software for Unix and Linux Systems - Now With Encryption|
    > |Supports: Tape Drives, Libraries, CD/DVD Optical Media |
    > |http://www.microlite.com ftp://ftp.microlite.com|
    > +---------------------------------------------------------+[/ref]


    willjay Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    willjay wrote:
     

    Now that's just silly. `bzip2` is one of the most portable programs
    ever written. Not that this is difficult, since all of its real work is
    computational; it needs to do only the simplest of system calls. It's
    so portable that it doesn't even have a `configure` script, and doesn't
    need one.

    JPR would hardly need to be proud of unpacking the source and typing
    `make; make install`.
     
    Bela Guest

  13. #13

    Default lesspipe [Was: Re: OpenSSH]

    Bela Lubkin typed (on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 08:02:57PM +0000):
    | willjay wrote:
    |
    | > What's really going on here, is somebody is really proud that they we able
    | > to get bzip to compile on openserver and now to justify their effort they
    | > are craming it down our throats.
    |
    | Now that's just silly. `bzip2` is one of the most portable programs
    | ever written. Not that this is difficult, since all of its real work is
    | computational; it needs to do only the simplest of system calls. It's
    | so portable that it doesn't even have a `configure` script, and doesn't
    | need one.
    |
    | JPR would hardly need to be proud of unpacking the source and typing
    | `make; make install`.

    After doing just that, I did perform a minimally original piece
    of work, which was to revise my /usr/local/bin/lesspipe script,
    effective once one has set the environment variable LESSOPEN to
    the value "|lesspipe %s".

    #!/bin/ksh
    #(#) lesspipe; JPRadley 17Nov 99
    #(#) invoked by 'less' when the env.var. LESSOPEN='|lesspipe %s'

    case "$1" in
    *.gz|*.tgz|*.Z) zcat $1 2>/dev/null ;;
    *.bz2|*tb2) bzcat $1 2>/dev/null ;;
    esac

    Then 'less' can display squished files just by typing, e.g.,

    less filename.bz2

    It obviates the need for 'zless', usually supplied by gzip source, and
    which doesn't cope with bzip2 files.

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    > "Brian K. White" <com> wrote in message 
    > news:<9h6bb.8478$bellsouth.net>... [/ref]
    > asked [/ref][/ref]
    if [/ref][/ref]
    him [/ref][/ref]
    available [/ref]
    > hear [/ref]
    > because 
    > >
    > > here's a reason:
    > > Because some people use it to package things that you might want.
    > >
    > > bzip2 compresses almost twice as well as plain old compress. That is
    > > enough reason to use somethings else. since it's no harder to install
    > > bzip2 than gzip, and bzip2 compresses a little better, might as well
    > > use that. If gzip came stock with the system that might be a
    > > reasonable argument because it is almost as good, but it doesn't.
    > >
    > > Size does matter. especially to servers (like jpr's) that dole out
    > > files to many users (like you). It is to the interest of everyone who
    > > uses the net if everyone does whatever they can to not waste the
    > > bandwidth.
    > > Size also matyters when a customers box does not have a fast net
    > > connection. I still have to cu to some sites and use uuencode and %put
    > > %take to transfer files at 9600. Size matters a LOT there. (and the
    > > first thing I do in such cases is install that godawful kermit or
    > > rz/sz that no one can use so that future transfers are faster, fault
    > > tolerant, resumable, easier, ...)
    > >
    > > Here is 3 commands to get both gzip and bzip2 (and wget in the
    > > bargain) all at once:
    > > rftp -g -bh pcunix.com /pub/bkw setup_gnu
    > > chmod 755 setup_gnu
    > > ./setup_gnu gzip-1.2.4 bzip2-0.9.5d
    > >
    > > What, you want to avoid using a script some guy whos morals, hygene,
    > > and ual proclivities you don't trust wrote? Ok, here is a slightly
    > > longer recipe that uses only stock commands:
    > >
    > > cd /tmp
    > > rftp -g -bh ftp2.caldera.com /pub/skunkware/osr5/vols
    > > bzip2-0.9.5d-VOLS.tar
    > > tar xvf bz*.tar
    > > custom -i -p SKUNK99:Bzip2 -z /tmp
    > > rm VOL.*
    > >
    > > but wait, it's even easier...
    > > any box that can even *run* openssh shipped with a skunkware cd. Just
    > > pop the cd in, run custom, point click drool.
    > >
    > > If you had a little different mindset about stuff like this, and were
    > > open to installing things like that godawful wget that no one can use
    > > instead of good ole ftp, you could be installing things with *one*
    > > line:
    > >
    > > wget -q -O - ftp://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
    > > or
    > > wget -q -O - http://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
    > >
    > > wam bam thank you maam
    > >
    > > I think you have it backwards as to what is handy and what is a pain
    > > in the neck.
    > >
    > > As a person who also provides binaries:
    > > I build it and package it for my own convenience. It is most
    > > convenient for me to install the bins I built using the single line
    > > like above. Why should I work harder than I already have for you?
    > > Unless you are sending me a check?
    > >
    > > And as a person who sometimes needs binaries:
    > > If I need a binary, then I don't care *how* it's packaged. I'm just
    > > grateful someone somewhere not only built the thing I need, but were
    > > even nice enough to make it publicly available so I could find it and
    > > get it. Complain about how it's packaged? Unbeleivable...
    > >
    > > But... definitely there is such a thing as inconvenient recipes to
    > > getting and installing some things. So just for the sake of argument,
    > > suppose something *was* packaged so horribly that it was a real pain
    > > in the neck chore to unpack and install? I still wouldn't bother the
    > > person who provided it. I'd just go through whatever hell is necessary
    > > the one time, then repackage it in whatever way I thought was more
    > > sensible and make that publicly available somewhere myself. (as long
    > > as we are talking about freely redistributable software)
    > > [/ref]
    >[/ref]

    "willjay" <com> wrote in message
    news:eFhbb.10420$bellsouth.net... 
    of 
    and 
    able 

    Yes, people do still use plain-old-compress. Why? It's quick and easy to
    use.

    You'll notice that MAJOR SOFTWARE VENDORS use all 3.. .Z, .gz, and .bz2,
    for people's convienience.

    However, we're talking companies with a few HUNDRED MBit of bandwidth, and
    can justify the extra cost, and space on their server.

    As for the compression difference between gzip and bzip2, there is a
    reasonable amount of difference, well worth the 5 minutes it takes to
    install it on pre 507 machines.

    Here's a conclusion from a NASA report (go figure) about bzip2/gzip:

    According to the yses with very limited samples, we find

    · Bzip2 is always better than gzip in compression ratio.

    · Bzip2 is always taking longer processing time than gzip,
    especially for decoding time.

    · Neither compression packages is good for floating point data.

    · Compression ratio is not sensitive to different compression levels
    for both compression packages.

    · Encoding time is worse with the increasing of compression level
    for both compression packages. Encoding time is more sensitive for gzip
    than for bzip2.

    · Overall library ysis is consistent with utility ysis.

    · Integrating bzip2 to HDF5 is not hard but maintenance effort
    cannot be ignored.



    (taken from:
    http://hdf.ncsa.uiuc.edu/HDF5/papers/bzip2/bzip2_reportweb.htm)

    Go figure.

    bkx


    Stuart Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    "willjay" <com> wrote in message news:<eFhbb.10420$bellsouth.net>... 

    gzip doesn't ship with the OS any more than bzip2 does. so the
    question remains, if you have to install something anyways, and as
    long as the install is no mor difficult than any oither, then why not
    the best? Find a package intended for unix that is packed into a .cab
    file, then you have a slightly valid gripe.

    and... bzip2 is a _trivial_ compile. It's not exactly a great
    achievement of the sort that is likely to inspire an over-abundance of
    pride to the extent that causes one to lord it over others.
    Brian Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    ....and you forgot to say "thanks" to all these guys who spent their time to
    "convince" you.
    cheers!
    sc

    "willjay" <com> wrote in message
    news:Tonbb.14001$bellsouth.net... 
    file [/ref][/ref]
    that 
    > >
    > > Let's examine that assertion. Here is a real-life example.
    > > I've renamed one of our standard downloadable files here.
    > >
    > > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 2581859 Sep 20 21:48 File1
    > > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 576472 Sep 20 21:48 File2.gz
    > > -rw-r--r-- 1 tom group 465756 Sep 20 21:48 File3.bz2
    > >
    > > File1 is as normal. File2 is "gzip -9". File3 is "bzip2 -9".
    > > A calculator tells us that file3 is 110716 bytes smaller than
    > > File2, or ** 19.2% **.
    > >
    > > So using this example JP would save roughly 20% of his disk
    > > space and 20% of his bandwidth when you download, and you'd
    > > get to download almost 20% faster when you grab stuff from him.
    > > [/ref][/ref]
    gzip 
    > >
    > > 20% even on a one-time download is more than "a little bit".
    > >
    > > From a pure net space perspective, bzip2 on my OSR5 machine
    > > takes up 43928 bytes. So downloading ONE FILE is enough to
    > > offset the size of bzip (which would be only 20978 if it was
    > > gzipped when I downloaded it).
    > >
    > > A little perspective. Compressors have tradeoffs. The common
    > > theme of compressors is that they all decompress REALLY fast.
    > >
    > > Uniquely, each compressor trades compress time for compress ratio.
    > > A "bzip2 -9" file, while potentially being much smaller than a
    > > "gzip -9" file, can take significantly longer than gzip to
    > > compact. So JP is actually doing a bit more work on his end
    > > up front to save himself some disk space and bandwidth and to
    > > save you some download time.
    > >
    > > Note that ON AVERAGE bzip2 compresses better. I can probably
    > > come up with some examples where it doesn't, but it is
    > > probably better on more than 90% of all files.
    > >
    > > I remember when his ftp site ran from a modem. It doesn't any
    > > more but, like all of us older guys, we remember our roots and
    > > how to be as efficient as we can. JP has been doing it this
    > > way for years and sees no reason to change. And many OSR5
    > > customer DO still access his site from a modem. [/ref]
    > able [/ref]
    > they 
    > >
    > > I must respectfully disagree with your assertion.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best Regards,
    > > Tom
    > > ---
    > > D. Thomas Podnar - President com
    > > Microlite Corporation 724-375-6711 Voice
    > > 2315 Mill Street 724-375-6908 Fax
    > > Aliquippa PA 15001-2228 888-257-3343 Tollfree Sales
    > > +---------------------------------------------------------+
    > > |Makers of BackupEDGE 2.0 - Backup and Disaster Recovery |
    > > |Software for Unix and Linux Systems - Now With Encryption|
    > > |Supports: Tape Drives, Libraries, CD/DVD Optical Media |
    > > |http://www.microlite.com ftp://ftp.microlite.com|
    > > +---------------------------------------------------------+[/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]


    Steve Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    This has nothing to do with the current "compressor war" that happens
    to be labeled "Re: OpenSSH" rather, this is actually an OpenSSH
    question...

    I just built openssh 3.7.1p1 on a 5.0.7 box with the latest gnutools

    This box had openssh 3.5p1 built-in before this, which worked fine.
    I used it lots of times to connect, including many times just before
    and during using the same box to build the new openssh. Connecting
    from the same client IP, same client program, same options on the
    server & client etc...
    (putty, protocol 2 and fish forced in both client and server)

    before building the new ssh, there was no delays during login. After
    un-installing the old ssh:
    custom -r SCO:ssh

    and installing the new and starting it, connections experience a
    rather long delay after answering the password prompt.
    the login prompt appears immediately, but I beleive the way ssh works
    that is supplied by the client not by the server like telnet. In any
    even, my client is configured to already send a username and a private
    key. The private key is rejected since I never copied it to this site,
    and so immediately uppon connection I get a logging in as nnn message,
    server rejected our key, and a password prompt all at once instantly.
    This is normal. I answer the password prompt and 30-40 seconds later I
    get a shell and everything is normal.

    Yes it sounds like a common dns timeout.
    except my ip does actually have a hostname, and the nameservers in
    /etc/resolv.conf must be ok since I can lookup my ip and my hostname
    instantly. (who -umx, ping, etc...) in any event, just for giggles I
    added my IP to /etc/hosts just to see if it made a difference:
    no difference.
    not surprising since telnet & ftp and even ssh before replacing it
    are/were fine.

    Verified that the delay is not caused by any of the odd stuff I put in
    /etc/profile (among other things, a who -m to detect real interactive
    logins vs non-interactive sourcing.) by putting a
    echo "/etc/profile starting...\c" ; read junk
    at the top.

    I had previously built 3.5p1 and applied the same chroot patch I
    applied this time, and used the same (utter lack of) ./configure
    options

    I googled around to see if anyone alse experienced a delay at this
    particular spot, but didn't find anything but the usual "make sure the
    client ip can resolve by fixing resolv.conf or putting the ip in
    /etc/hosts" (and making sure resolver is told to check hosts first)

    I'm about to clean out this install and try jpr's (assuming I can
    reach his ftp site this time) build, which does not have the chroot
    patch and which does include various features (ssl etc...) that I
    didn't include.

    I'm assuming that this will all be moot soon, since openssh 3.5p1 was
    bundled right in the base 5.0.7 install, that means sco will be
    obliged to produce a 3.7 based update, which, presumable, will work
    just as well as the original 3.5 unless the problem is in the 3.7 code
    itself. I still need to build my own because I still need that chroot
    patch but only for one site and maybe not for them for much longer.
    Brian Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: OpenSSH


    "Brian K. White" <com> wrote in message
    news:google.com... 


    Update...
    When I uninstalled the original sco ssh with the following command I think
    it removed prngd as well as ssh.

    custom -r SCO:ssh

    So I built the latest prngd and manually installed as /etc/in.prngd and
    retrieved /etc/prngd (an non-trivial rc script expected by /etc/tcp) from
    another 5.0.7 box.

    at this point /etc/tcp stop/start sucessfully starts and stops prngd the
    same way it did originally.

    next I built openssh with the following:
    useradd sshd
    CFLAGS="-O2 -s"
    ../configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc/ssh --with-zlib=/usr/lib --wit
    h-ssl-dir=/usr/lib/openssl --with-rand-helper --with-prngd-socket=/etc/egd
    -pool --with-ipaddr-display
    make
    make install
    ln -s /usr/sbin/sshd /etc/sshd

    then start ssh and test /etc/tcp at the same time...

    tcp stop
    tcp start

    Now, I do NOT have any delay after answering the password prompt when
    logging in.

    Now I just need to formulate a way to install this on 5.0.6 and below
    since the above steps insinuate the new prngd and openssh right in place
    of the old, where /etc/tcp and /etc/prngd and /etc/default/tcp expect them
    and so the normal systen startup/shutdown works as normal to start & stop
    the services.
    I'd need to supply start scripts to take the place of the ones I can't
    copy from 5.0.7 (Or, maybe I *can* copy these particular files?? Are they
    written from scratch or are they merely customized from ones that come
    with the packages? the packages are fully open.) I don't yet know what if
    any complications openssl and zlib pose) I'll be finding out in the next
    few days :)

    --
    Brian K. White -- com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani

    Brian Guest

  19. #19

    Default OT: Re: OpenSSH

    Brian K. White wrote:
     

    Bloody hell, you're going to have start marking your replies 'ON TOPIC'.

    /dev/null Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: OpenSSH

    Brian K. White typed (on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:14:55AM -0400):
    |
    |
    | next I built openssh with the following:
    | useradd sshd
    | CFLAGS="-O2 -s"
    | ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc/ssh --with-zlib=/usr/lib --wit
    | h-ssl-dir=/usr/lib/openssl --with-rand-helper --with-prngd-socket=/etc/egd
    | -pool --with-ipaddr-display
    | make
    | make install
    | ln -s /usr/sbin/sshd /etc/sshd

    When I built openssh last week, I used only one of those options.
    The makefile already strips when installing and -O2 is the default.
    I would never install in /usr, only in /usr/local.
    The GNU compiler will search both /usr/local/lib and /usr/lib for
    the -lz and -lcrypto libraries, so there's nothing to
    specify there either.
    I don't want ssh's own rand-helper, since I run prngd.
    I'm not sure what ipaddr-display does?

    So: I used just two options:
    --with-tcp-wrappers --with-prngd-socket=/usr/local/prngd/prngd-pool

    | Now I just need to formulate a way to install this on 5.0.6 and below
    | since the above steps insinuate the new prngd and openssh right in place
    | of the old, where /etc/tcp and /etc/prngd and /etc/default/tcp expect them
    | and so the normal systen startup/shutdown works as normal to start & stop
    | the services.

    Just get my package and look at its README and RE-INSTALL files.

    | I'd need to supply start scripts to take the place of the ones I can't
    | copy from 5.0.7 (Or, maybe I *can* copy these particular files?? Are they
    | written from scratch or are they merely customized from ones that come
    | with the packages? the packages are fully open.) I don't yet know what if
    | any complications openssl and zlib pose) I'll be finding out in the next
    | few days :)

    My tarball provides /etc/init.d/prngd and /etc/init.d/sshd.

    When I build it later today for OSR 5.0.7, I'll use the same configure
    options, change SECURESHELL to NO in /etc/default/tcp, and use the two
    just-mentioned startup scripts.

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bug in Contribute > openssh
    By jwever in forum Macromedia Contribute Connection Administrtion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 7th, 10:01 AM
  2. compiling openssh 3.7p1 on aix 5.1
    By Tim Bruijnzeels in forum AIX
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 17th, 11:46 AM
  3. openssh on aix4.2
    By samara in forum AIX
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 9th, 11:37 AM
  4. OpenSSH & autostart
    By Piotr Szumny in forum AIX
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 5th, 03:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139