I was searching for OpenSSH the other day and landed on this page, which is a disambiguation on grounds that "OpenSSH is not the only implementation". Well - as far as this wiki is concerned, it is the only relevant implementation. TinySSH, Dropbear etc. have no dedicated wiki articles, and otherwise this page has no content warranting its split from OpenSSH. -- Alad (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- +1. It was actually that way before it was moved: Special:Diff/548687. -- Svito (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, as this page clearly indicate that there are alternatives to OpenSSH. It also encourages to document things that are generic to SSH (security, implementations, relation to other software, alternative usage, ...) that would be discouraged should the only page referencing SSH was OpenSSH. Apollo22 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well - such "generic" information, as far as it is worthwhile documenting on ArchWiki, can equally be documented in OpenSSH. Especially if the current stub is all we've had in the last months. And if the documention belongs elsewhere, e.g. upstream or on wikipedia, having a seperate SSH article wouldn't change that. -- Alad (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Originally, the info about other SSH clients and servers was buried pretty deep on the single page, which was 99% OpenSSH-specific. Looking at the old table of contents, it does not make sense to have sections like "OpenSSH", "Other implementations", "Tips and tricks" (which contains only info specific to OpenSSH) and "Troubleshooting" (which also contains only info specific to OpenSSH). It also wouldn't make sense to move "Tips and tricks" and "Troubleshooting" into the "OpenSSH" section. IMO the current state is much better from the organizational point of view, it will just take time until people get used to the fact that they should search for OpenSSH and not just SSH. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- My idea was to include the information on SSH at the top (introduction) of the article, rather than somewhere in the middle. (In particular, there would be no "OpenSSH" or "Other implementations" sections.) To avoid clutter, the alternative implementations could in turn be included in List of applications, linked accordingly.
- I agree that organisationally, the SSH/OpenSSH split is fine. Considering 99% of SSH content on the wiki is about OpenSSH, however (which is also unlikely to change in future), I would say the suggestion above is more practical. -- Alad (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)