Born Again Microsoft! Great stuff!
Is this a reference to the bash shell? (Bourne Again SHell)
Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
141–150 of 404 posts
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#142Finally! 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 reas…
I hope people don't actually believe PowerShell is NIH.
PowerShell had good reasons to exist in 2006, when it was released to the public. LINQ didn't exist yet, most of the "Windows scripting" took place via VBScript files and WMI, and dinosaurs roamed the earth.
So PowerShell was created to be a "scripting language for Windows".
PowerShell has a lot of great features specifically created for use in the shell, and some ok features (like easy COM integration) that were great in 2006. If you don't know what those are, I guess you could draw the conclusion that it's just another .NET language.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#143For 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…
>Wishlist: tmux, emacs, vi, netcat, shell option for vi-mode, rc-file with preferences, ncurses library, something simpler than curses, zip and unzip No thankyou. I can certainly understand including SSH support, but I don't want what is pretty much the only remaining viable non-Unix platform to start bundling horribly dated and clunky Unix-like commands and bloated GNU tools.
regedit would like to have coffee with you.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#144For 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…
>Wishlist: tmux, emacs, vi, netcat, shell option for vi-mode, rc-file with preferences, ncurses library, something simpler than curses, zip and unzip No thankyou. I can certainly understand including SSH support, but I don't want what is pretty much the only remaining viable non-Unix platform to start bundling horribly dated and clunky Unix-like commands and bloated GNU tools.
Couldn't agree more.
As a die hard Unix guy and ex Slashdot-esque zealot (colloquially a bit of a twat). Yet I'm knocking out PowerShell all the time now and dread having to log into the pile of CentOS kit I have lying around. It is arcane. Even after 15 years I spend most of my time in the manpages or working out another damn config format.
Literally did a two liner to scrape a web page, parse it and call a REST endpoint with the parsed data as JSON in PowerShell. I cant even use python now. I've been broken.
It makes me cringe saying all this as well kind of like a racist making amends with his past.
The only thing I still hate is windows update.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#145For 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…
Never thought I'd say this... but I can foresee a future release of Windows being touted as POSIX compliant.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's free for any genuine Windows 7 or 8 user, and $99 to $199 for anyone else. It's free ONLY if you get it in their window (1 year I think) it just seems unnecessarily complicated when they should just make it free. Also they have 3-4 more SKUs than just Home and Pro (which really should only be 1). > Windows 10 is supposed to be the last Windows release of this kind I'll believe that when I see it also there is…
Why should microsoft just make their primary commercial product free for everyone? I am curious to know what percentage of MS profit is from OS sales, but I assume it's very high? Apple can make their OS free cause they make money on the hardware, which 99% of people buy from them to run the OS on. And of course linux and other open source is another story.
I don't think microsoft makes that much money from customers buying their OS directly, but rather from OEMs installing Windows by default on the laptops/desktops they are selling.
Never once have I met a person buying a standalone windows upgrade/windows OS. Either they end up buying a new computer, they stick with whatever was installed on their computer (hello, XP/Vista users), or they illegally download the upgrades.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#147I hope that Microsoft donates money to OpenSSH/OpenBSD. The way I read this, they indicated that they would.
"I’m pleased to announce that the PowerShell team will support and contribute to the OpenSSH community."Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#148For 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…
Never thought I'd say this... but I can foresee a future release of Windows being touted as POSIX compliant.
It already was. In the NT days.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#149Wonderful. I am a big supporter of Powershell, and while Powershell has supported remoting since almost day one, it will never enjoy quite as much support as SSH already receives (e.g. third party tools, firewall support, etc). It is also nice that they're looking into using something fairly "proven" secure, OpenSSH is exposed to the internet a lot (even if, yes, that is not best practice) so we can reasonably expect…
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…
Hilarious thought: how much stuff like syslog support would microsoft have to add to start attracting systemd refugees? :D
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#150For 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…
> Hmm. They can now have a path to obsolete cmd. As long as they ship a decent ssh client with the system, users will become accustomed to ssh-ing to their own box instead of using cmd. Baby steps! SSH is a transport protocol, not a shell. If you SSH to your own box, you're just going to get PowerShell.
SSH clients are also typically terminal emulators, though. The idea here would be to have an ssh client which acts as a better terminal than cmd.exe does. The effect of this isn't about whether you get access to a better shell, but instead about whether you have a better terminal with which to talk to that shell.