61–70 of 404 posts
I happily await the day when I no longer need to install PuTTY on all of my fresh Windows installs.
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't ISE pretty much what you are asking for?
What is ISE? Some cursory googling makes it out to be some kind of Cisco router thing.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd315244.aspx?f=...
Now, can we please get a proper terminal? :)
What's left? Perhaps a real terminal?
To bad this won't make it into Win 10, unless I misunderstood something. Looks like my days of sneering at Windows as a toy are numbered... end of an era, and it makes me a bit sad, sniff.
I happily await the day when I no longer need to install PuTTY on all of my fresh Windows installs.
In a recent HN thread, someone pointed me to MobaXterm ( http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/ ) and I have gladly deleted PuTTY.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't ISE pretty much what you are asking for?
It tries, but I think ISE is super clunky and it's awkward to use. It lacks the simplicity of a bog-standard terminal while not adding features to balance out its clunkiness (akin to the difference between a text editor an IDE--the IDE had best add something I can use if I'm going to take the hit).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A VPN with sshd exposed only inside the private network is a much smarter way of handling remote access. (But it's initially harder, so lots of people don't do it.)
You're just trading sshd bugs for VPN bugs, in that case. Which are more likely? From what I know, I think I'll put my lot in with sshd. Perhaps I'm not well informed, though. Also, sshd + fwknop (port knocking) is a very secure combo, IMO.
And you're also manually creating SSH tunnels to do anything else inside that network, so you've got that going for you, too.
It's 2015. A VPN is the settled method for accessing sensitive services inside a private network. Doing otherwise may create great nerd cred but doesn't make you do your job better.
I'm looking forward to MS just dropping their OS entirely and using linux as their back-end. Basically, Microsoft might be better off creating their own linux distribution running a "microsoft windows" windows manager.
You mean desktop environment? Funnily enough, Windows started as one ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versi... ). It was considered a "graphical operating system shell", what we'd call a "desktop environment" these days. It is technically doable, but I'm not sure the Windows NT kernel is worth discarding entirely. It has some fancy tech in there and if need be it can emulate POSIX through "per…