I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding here. Let me approach both possible interpretations I can think of:

1) You're saying that PuTTY is Windows only, and then go on explaining what it is for and why that might be okay.

If that's what you think, that'd be wrong. PuTTY is available on a number of platforms, even on Linux. The port mentioned above though limits itself to Windows. I find that, plus the roadmap, weird & unfortunate to put it politely.

2) But that wasn't your point and you tried to make the point that PuTTY doesn't make _sense_ on platforms that already have a decent terminal emulator, ssh support etc.

In that case: Fair enough. I'd even agree. But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users. It's the old discussion about using native but different clients on a number of platforms or going for a (decent) cross-platform solution. I think it's great to have the choice to use software on a multitude of systems - even if I'm not an active user/see no need for myself.

  But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users.

Really? Who? Why? I cannot possibly think of any reason to use PuTTY in linux.

- If a lab or school environment has multiple OSs, and a need to SSH (telnet/ftp) elsewhere - one would only have to write instructions once.

- People who need ssh to a host, who are not comfortable with a command line, or are used to PuTTY.

These might be service desk staff who have instructions like 'ssh to host frumpty, type restart-app [enter]'

Our service desk has instructions like that, but they all use Windows. So, PuTTY. And if they use Linux .. PuTTY. It's easier.

In actuality, they call the 3rd level support and ask them to do that. And, really, we're pushing that stuff to the Enterprise scheduler so all they _really_ have to do is login to _that_ and request job task 'Restart_FOO_App' and it's done for them.

Which, in the long run, doesn't teach them how to do anything but push buttons. And is probably bad for their further development in IT. But I digress.

I don't get how one can be using a 'unix-y' computer and not be familiar with the command line. But I understand there are people out there like that.

A mixture of the two points, perhaps.

I simply found the idea of PuTTY on Unix odd. Like re-inventing the wheel.

If other people like it, like enough to make a port, well good for them.

The port mentioned above though limits itself to Windows. I find that, plus the roadmap, weird & unfortunate to put it politely.

I don't see enough differentiation there replace my use of PuTTY. That it stores values in the registry is enough to sour me on it.

Again, different strokes, different folks.

What the hell just happened? Downvoted into oblivion for what exactly?

That was odd. I found your comment reasonable and helpful.

For working with embedded devices, I find putty to be slightly more convenient than setterm+stty+cat /dev/ttyUSB0 or cu -l /dev/ttyACM0. Its significantly more convenient for the purpose than minicom.

I use GNU Screen for similar purposes (on Mac OS X)