Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sudo for Windows

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 439 posts

Re: Sudo for Windows

#151

Post by int_19h »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #130
calamari4065 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a horribly convoluted way to manage permissions. Also I have never heard anyone suggest you shouldn't use a local admin account. That's the exact problem UAC was meant to solve. Having used an unprivileged Windows account, all I can say is no thanks. It's a huge burden if you do anything even slightly more complex than Facebook and email. As a blanket policy at work, all programmers are admins, everyone el…

Nobody does what you describe. When someone has a genuine need for local admin access, they are given two accounts - an unprivileged account to log in with, and a privileged account to enter into UAC when needed. It would indeed be an unbelievable waste of time to make your IT staff sit next to users to enter admin credentials, which is why nobody does it. And for the record, "don't log in with a local admin account"…

"Nobody does what you describe" is a very... broad statement. I can tell you that "all devs are local admins" is indeed a very popular policy, and has been the case everywhere I worked in the past, oh, 20 years or so - including Microsoft itself.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#152

Post by marwis »

Joker_vD wrote: post #49
vimsee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..there's enough that's different about the permissions structure between OS's that just a straight port wouldn't make sense. Does this mean that the feature set of sudo for Windows can't be similar to the feature set found on sudo for *nix e.g. for BSD, MacOS, Linux..?

Does sudo supports ACLs (which are the basis of Windows security model)?

It has it's own config file and can be configured to do just about anything:

https://www.sudo.ws/docs/man/1.8.15/sudoers.man/

Re: Sudo for Windows

#153

Post by int_19h »

lvass wrote: post #109
Night_Thastus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said on the other post, I strongly doubt that. It offers few benefits and many roadblocks. It would be a monstrous amount of work, would throw into question many existing security-related certifications, break Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility, etc. All MS is trying to do is make it easier for developers to develop on Windows for Windows, which it has ample incentive to do both internally and externall…

>Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility This is like, the primary reason to do this move. Wine has better compatibility for windows software than windows has now in my experience.

It's far easier to port Wine to run on modern Windows than to port Windows to run on a Linux kernel.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#154

Post by Anon1096 »

blibble wrote: post #129
neurostimulant wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they should've named it something else to avoid confusion, especially if it doesn't have the same behavior as unix sudo. If it has different arguments and features, imagine the confusion of unsuspecting users searching how to use sudo in the future.

that's the standard microsoft way embrace (copy sudo), extend (add incompatible options), extinguish

I can say with 100% certainty that Microsoft is not going to extinguish sudo

Re: Sudo for Windows

#155

Post by int_19h »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #74
Night_Thastus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said on the other post, I strongly doubt that. It offers few benefits and many roadblocks. It would be a monstrous amount of work, would throw into question many existing security-related certifications, break Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility, etc. All MS is trying to do is make it easier for developers to develop on Windows for Windows, which it has ample incentive to do both internally and externall…

I have been continually disappointed that Microsoft has not released a seamless Windows virtualization system. WindowsX would run the new, redesigned APIs, but all of the legacy could run inside a sandboxed system to give the world the required decades to finally transition.

There have been experiments along these lines for some time now. E.g. there's https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...

And before that, some people might remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_PC#Windows_XP_Mode.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#156

Post by int_19h »

Conscat wrote: post #68
scrlkrunner wrote: post #40

This adds a factor of enshittification for NT, NT doesn't need 88 line PowerShell scripts, this "sudo for Windows" thing makes Windows seem like a teenager's high school project. Windows NT already has runas, let NT be NT and let POSIX have sudo/doas. Previously Microsoft hired the best of the best operating systems engineers in the USA who were from Digital and they proved to be people capable of making an operating…

They decided kernel-mode graphics isn't a terrible idea, though.

At the time that decision was made, it was the only way to get acceptable performance on typical computers on which NT was expected to run.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#157

Post by marwis »

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #89
vips7L wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is different about sudo vs runas?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/sudo/#how-is-sudo-...

Seems like it could be done by adding new features/flags to runas?

And then maybe creating alias to sudo in PowerShell like it does for other things.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#158

Post by earthwalker99 »

NikkiA wrote: post #110
zadjii wrote: post #2

Yep, it's really happening. Sudo is coming to Windows. It's obviously not just a fork of the linux sudo - there's enough that's different about the permissions structure between OS's that just a straight port wouldn't make sense. But the dream of being able to run commands as admin, in the same terminal window - that's the experience we're finally bringing to users. I've been working on this for the last few months n…

I've been using the 'sudo' that scoop offers for a while, and it has always done exactly what I wanted and completely removed the hassle of having to open a new cmd/powershell with 'run as administrator'. Plus it means I don't have to leave the comfort of Tabby.

Back when I used scoop, I uninstalled that right away because I didn't like how scoop installed it on its own.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#159

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

int_19h wrote: post #153
lvass wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility This is like, the primary reason to do this move. Wine has better compatibility for windows software than windows has now in my experience.

It's far easier to port Wine to run on modern Windows than to port Windows to run on a Linux kernel.

It's also far easier to port an old Windows application to run on modern Windows, or write a program on modern Windows targeting old Windows, than it is to do any of this on Linux.

Re: Sudo for Windows

#160

Post by wvenable »

neurostimulant wrote: post #78
zadjii wrote: post #2

Yep, it's really happening. Sudo is coming to Windows. It's obviously not just a fork of the linux sudo - there's enough that's different about the permissions structure between OS's that just a straight port wouldn't make sense. But the dream of being able to run commands as admin, in the same terminal window - that's the experience we're finally bringing to users. I've been working on this for the last few months n…

I think they should've named it something else to avoid confusion, especially if it doesn't have the same behavior as unix sudo. If it has different arguments and features, imagine the confusion of unsuspecting users searching how to use sudo in the future.

Windows and Linux already share dozens of commandline commands with the same name and have different behaviors.
Post reply on HN