Live data from Hacker News

Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

blogs.msdn.com

81–90 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#81
post #60

For all Balmer's thing of dancing on a stage and chanting "developers", there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company. That has completely changed in the last eighteen months. Each time I think "wouldn't it be cool if" I'm finding a few weeks later that someone at Microsoft is well ahead of me. How much easier it will be to ship my sucky roguelikes to Windows users in this…

Cygwin has all of those things and ssh server support.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#82
post #60

For all Balmer's thing of dancing on a stage and chanting "developers", there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company. That has completely changed in the last eighteen months. Each time I think "wouldn't it be cool if" I'm finding a few weeks later that someone at Microsoft is well ahead of me. How much easier it will be to ship my sucky roguelikes to Windows users in this…

I disagree. Under Gates early on I felt the developer love.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#84
Finally! PowerShell Remoting just plain sucks, at least it has for me. I've always wondered why the PowerShell developer(s?) would do something so needlessly contrived when SSH has been around for, like, twenty years or so.

This will definitely make my job easier! Or at least more convenient.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#85

I happily await the day when I no longer need to install PuTTY on all of my fresh Windows installs.

Or worse, Cygwin, because of some obscure process that needs to connect via ssh to your Windows server...

Agreed here. Installing and configuring Cygwin has traditionally been a royal pain; Microsoft offering some equivalent as an officially-supported Windows add-on (or just part of the core Windows) would be a godsend.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#86
post #60

For all Balmer's thing of dancing on a stage and chanting "developers", there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company. That has completely changed in the last eighteen months. Each time I think "wouldn't it be cool if" I'm finding a few weeks later that someone at Microsoft is well ahead of me. How much easier it will be to ship my sucky roguelikes to Windows users in this…

Cygwin has all of those things and ssh server support.

Fair. But I couldn't target my crappy roguelikes at cygwin - requires complicated third-party installs.

I ran cygwin-with-ssh heavily for a while in 2003. It was a hell of a thing to get it going. Then I had trouble getting it to work on a new computer and gave up. Shouldn't be surprised that it got good again.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#88
post #60

For all Balmer's thing of dancing on a stage and chanting "developers", there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company. That has completely changed in the last eighteen months. Each time I think "wouldn't it be cool if" I'm finding a few weeks later that someone at Microsoft is well ahead of me. How much easier it will be to ship my sucky roguelikes to Windows users in this…

Cygwin has all of those things and ssh server support.

I don't know many sysadmins who would use Cygwin to handle remote access to production servers.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#89
post #61
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

While I agree that a native terminal/ssh client is the best solution, putty is very much maintained still: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/changes.ht... last change was in February of 2015

Oops, my mistake. Should have fact-checked!
Post reply on HN