Comment by baldfat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by baldfat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Technically Speaking" = Political Double Talk

I know I will continue to be down voted BUT you need to get into politics. Because you are arguing the whole sentence "MOSH is a replacement for SSH." Means It is NOT a replacement? Argument is it has SSH as a requirement so "technically" it isn't replacing SSH, even though based on precise facts it actually does kill SSH and replace it when it is used? The authors of MUSH clearly make a one sentence statement of purpose to "replace SSH." Your statement "It isn't a replacement for SSH." is more correct?

It does have SSH required but it uses it for a limited authorization and than SSH on TCP is abandoned once the connection established and the connection is handed over (Replaced) to a MOSH UDP with encryption that is totally independent from SSH.

Makes me crazy that "technically" always means I will say the EXACT opposite of the statement and say that my opposite is more accurate than the stated statement.

This statement is technically true based on facts and declaration of the authors. MOSH is a mobile shell that replaces SSH connections. It doesn't matter that SSH is there the SSH connection is replaced with a UDP MOSH connection. Does it in literal sense in its actions.

I made that "technically speaking" statement in the context of "I don't feel like installing a not well established ssh server replacement on hosts at work". I thought, maybe Galanwe has concerns about security and the fact that mosh builds on ssh instead of replacing it might be a counter argument.

But it does completely replace it EXCEPT for SSH connection.

1) SSH makes the TCP connection

2) MOSH starts a UDP Connection

3) MOSH kills the SSH TCP Connection and there is no ssh processes running anymore.

Mosh is a replacement for ssh (the client), but not for sshd, as it relies on it to make a connection. OpenSSH also is not meant to be replaced, which also has not been claimed in your link.

Please pay attention to semantics while fencing with words.

My Statement: MOSH is a replacement for SSH

Joe - you changed the very words from SSH to sshd, sshd is just the server side of SSH really what does that matter at all? What part of "Mosh is a replacement for ssh (the client), but not for sshd, as it relies on it to make a connection" Is any different than my whole previous post?

Read my statement on SSH being replaced. The sshd connection is actually totally and completely replaced with a UDP MISH connection and sshd no longer works after the connection is authorization. So in action SSH connection is shut down and handed over to MOSH (AKA Replaces the Connection) Also it is so you never use SSH for your work except to be authorized by your keys.

>OpenSSH also is not meant to be replaced, which also has not been claimed in your link

My Link - The official website for MOSH. The only statement is that they think MOSH is more secure than OpenSSL and OpenSSH. But yes it replaces OpenSSH and SSH. It replaces the very connection it makes and it replaces SSH or OpenSSH with MOSH to handle EVERYTHING except that initial handshake authorization.

Please Quote your source for "which also has not been claimed in your link"

I say look at the mirror. Joe the statement is 100% true MOSH is a replacement for SSH in purpose, programming and in practice. Where is it okay to say that MOSH is a replacement for SSH is wrong in any sense besides it is a requirement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com