In article <00AAB4AD.FDCDC632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
In article <RvOdnaR1qrkdDvzQnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2/20/2011 9:00 AM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
In article<ijofn4$i75$1@xxxxxxxxx>, helbig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
In article
<df8d248a-64d2-42c2-97ea-fd74dedda748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Neil
Rieck<n.rieck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

2) SSH is based upon port 22. If the source computer can't connect to
the destination computer on port 22 (lets say it was due to a
misconfigured firewall or proxy-server) then other technologies like
SFTP and SCP have no chance of working.

So SSH, SFTP and SCP all go to port 22 by default?

Yes. They're all manifestations of ssh.

You can easily change the port with:

$ ssh -p ####
$ sftp -oPort=####>
$ scp -P ####

Don't you just love that unix command line uniformity? ;)

No, but if you must play with Unix, you must either live with the shell
as is or modify it to suit your preferences. I suspect learning the
strange language and syntax is easier than rolling your own. Some
people even like it that way.

There are millions of Unix users out there who seem to find the syntax
and semantic usable and useful. They couldn't care less what we think!
ISTR that someone wrote a "DCL shell" but I don't think it ever became

I worked on a system that had an "MSDOS Shell". Look and feel just like
MSDOS. The users were all new to the desktop computer world and had no
previous unix experience. None of them opted to use the MSDOS Shell for
more than a week or so finding the unix shell to be much more powerful.
I once even wrote a UCSD-Psystem Shell imitating all the menus. It was
done mostly as a proof-of-concept project and no one ever opted to use
it in a production environment. It took me about 2 hours to write.

DCL shell or not will make no difference. unix command switches are parsed
in the utility, not by the shell a la DCL.

True, but that doesn't mean you couldn't parse them in the shell using
whatever format you wanted and then re-issue the command with the switches
re-written to match those desired by the command itself.

My comment was WRT the different
syntax within the 'ssh' suite of commands: ssh, sftp, and scp. Little 'p',
big 'P' and 'oPort'.

I would guess that all three were written by totally different people
with no coordination between them. Unix guys are good, but I know of
none that have mastered ESP yet.


Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>