{wodTelnetDLX} versus {wodSSH} (wodSSH / wodSSH.NET)

{wodTelnetDLX} versus {wodSSH}

Are there any differences between wodTelnetDLX and wodSSH besides the additional support of a GUI interface.

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is, I am working on a TELNET client application and would like to add support for SSH1, SSH2 and SSL connections; however, I do not need or want the GUI interface.

So, am I better off purchasing wodSSH or does the wodTelnetDLX offer more features and still allow me to use it without the GUI implmentation?

Thanks,
Robert

Hi.

I suggest wodTelnetDLX. It's just a little more expensive ($10 I believe) but it does support SSL also (which wodSSH doesn't), has GUI (you don't need it now, may need in the future) etc..

There are no options that wodSSH does have and wodTelnetDLX doesn't.

Best regards,
Kreso

Well, I took you advise and started down the path of testing with wodTelnetDLX; however, I have noticed a few properties in the wodSSH, that I cannot seem to find in the wodTelnetDLX component.

Encryption: Determines the encryption algorithm to be used with SSH.

Compression: Determines the level of compression used.

ForwardHost: Determines the hostname that data will be forwarded to with SSH tunneling.

ForwardPort : Determines if wodSSH will only forward data to remote port.

I am VERY new to SSH, SSL; however I have noticed these type of options in most commercial terminal emulation applications. So, does wodTelnetDLX have a way to configure these properties?

Thank You, Robert.

Ouch. My mistake. You are correct - these features are common to SSH protocol and that's why they exist. wodTelnetDLX is somehow more oriented to have support for all Protocols it implements (and doesn't go specific into some protocols) and that's why it doesn't have those items. If you think they're important, you should use wodSSH.

Kreso