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

Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#101

Post by krylon »

Yaggo wrote: post #72

Seems that Windows is adopting more and more * nix stuff. I wonder why one uses Windows in the first place if * nix stuff is what she needs?

As a Windows admin and long time GNU/Linux / BSD user, I would totally love to replace every single Windows at our company with a Unixoid system. But there's a lot of software we use that either is not available on non-Windows platforms, where no decent replacement exists and/or migration is considered to expensive. If, say, Autodesk ported their software to some free Unixoid system, that would go a long way. But AFAIK, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#102

Post by wvenable »

nogridbag wrote: post #80
daeken wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how they are handling Win 10 (Both in versions and cost) I'm a bit confused by this. It's free for any genuine Windows 7 or 8 user, and $99 to $199 for anyone else. There are two SKUs (Home and Pro), rather than the multitude with XP or Vista. How is this not a reasonable approach? Especially since Windows 10 is supposed to be the last Windows release of this kind.

I believe they also have Windows 10 Enterprise, Windows 10 education and if we include the phone OS: Windows 10 mobile and Windows 10 mobile enterprise.

The versions are all pretty reasonable and not significantly different outside of the one thing that defines their SKU.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#103

Post by eropple »

zokier wrote: post #68
eropple wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Could you expand why you find ISE clunky and awkward compared to standard terminal? I mean you can just type in stuff and get answers back with fairly minimal interference as far as I can tell, just like a regular terminal.

I would suggest you go look at iTerm2, because an example is worth all the words in the world. tmux integration, multiple panes in a window as well as tabs, easy buffer search, instant startup, everything.

A shell host should open and do its absolute utmost to get out of my way. ISE does not do this. It's just...it's what I expect 2008 Microsoft to think a terminal should be, lacking empathy for me as a user. And maybe that's intentional--maybe I'm not the target audience. Maybe it's for mouse drivers who are forced to the CLI in extremity. But it's tasteless and it's hindering where it really must not be.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#105

Post by mhurron »

darklajid wrote: post #100
freehunter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SYSLOG! For the love of god, please support syslog! I work as a consultant supporting a SIEM, and the amount of hoops we need to jump through to get logs from Windows servers is crazy compared to changing one line in a syslog.conf file. I actually dread when a client says "we're an all Windows environment" because wow initial setup just got that much harder. And if we want to install a syslog forwarder on their domai…

You CAN export the event log data of course, even remotely. But it's rather ugly and I agree that some standard aggregation (syslog or anything) would be great.

Even the choice of outputs (of which remote syslog should be one) would be a great addition to the Windows event log.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#106

Post by sixbrx »

zokier wrote: post #22
Someone1234 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really need to announce a conhost replacement. The "experiments" in Windows 10 are undeniably improvements for when we still use things like cmd, but Powershell needs a modern terminal window and there needs to be a native answer to Putty for both SSH and Powershell remoting. I'd say after SSH this should be a priority for the Powershell team. Conhost is holding them back. A lot.

Isn't ISE pretty much what you are asking for?

Powershell doesn't support interactive console apps (those that want user input), so it's really not much of a cmd.exe replacement.

http://powershell.com/cs/blogs/tips/archive/2012/12/12/block...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#107

Post by bigdubs »

krylon wrote: post #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.

"I've always wondered why the PowerShell developers ..." Think about the beginning of that sentence. They invented a new console language, when bash has been around forever and C# is a better programming language generally and can be run as a scripted language with a little finagling.

I don't think the PS team is bad (or PS itself for that matter), I just think there was a lot of re-inventing of the wheel for no reason, and that started way upstream of remoting.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#108

Post by Cyph0n »

nacs wrote: post #95
cturner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try Babun [1] for a pre-configured Cygwin setup with an easy install. I've been using it for the past month or so and it works great. [1]: http://babun.github.io/

That looks amazing. Thanks for the link.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#109

Post by dpark »

mattstreet wrote: post #97
tjohns wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily better. But now you have two layers of security (VPN + SSH), rather than just one. And as others have mentioned, either way it's still good practice to disable password auth, so that you can only connect to SSH using a public/private keypair.

If there is a defect with VPN and you gain arbitrary execution then you'd have access on the system as whatever user the VPN was running as. You don't necessarily have to break VPN and SSH.

The machines running your VPN are presumably not the same machines you're trying to access via SSH. A compromise in your VPN should't give anyone execution access to anything interesting.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#110

Post by heartbreak »

School-Cotton wrote: post #96
higherpurpose wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is like "OS X", then it doesn't mean anything. You'll still have to pay to buy "Windows 10.1" or "Windows 10 Redstone" or whatever they will call it. "Last version of Windows" is nothing but marketing, just like the overhyped "one Windows" idea. There isn't actually just "one" Windows 10, is there? Most versions of Windows 10 are not even within 10% of each other in terms of differences. There's a much larger…

OS X updates are free. I have installed a few since getting my Mac.

They were not always free; that's a recent change.
Post reply on HN