Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#151

Post by jevgeni » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

claudiusd wrote: post #135

cturner wrote: 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…

> 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.

... which is AWESOME.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#152

Post by pyre » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

halo wrote: post #128

cturner wrote: 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…

>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.

> bloated GNU tools

If you were coming from the Unix/BSD world, I could understand this, but how is using a GUI for everything considered elegant, while GNU tools are considered "bloated?" Doesn't the GUI necessarily "bloat" the program more than a few extra command-line options would?

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#153

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #110

School-Cotton wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They were not always free; that's a recent change.

I know that. Regardless, they are free now, so it's not unreasonable (given the competitive nature of the software industry) to think Microsoft's will be too.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#154

Post by ralphc » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:13 PM UTC

phren0logy wrote: post #45

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #12

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.

Another vote for MobaXTerm.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#155

Post by jevgeni » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #140

How about a terminal window you can resize with the mouse, and effortlessly cut and paste text, and with tab completion that doesn't do weird inexplicable things? Do they have that yet?

Apart from unconstrained resizing, everything else is part of Powershell.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#156

Post by McGlockenshire » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #140

How about a terminal window you can resize with the mouse, and effortlessly cut and paste text, and with tab completion that doesn't do weird inexplicable things? Do they have that yet?

There are dramatic improvements in the command prompt windows in Win10:

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Windows10GetsAFreshCommandProm...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#157

Post by jevgeni » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:18 PM UTC

jadeddrag wrote: post #39

breischl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they do! They also apparently like OSX, iOS, and RHEL.[1] Oh wait, you were just trying to score cheap snark points, weren't you? [1] - https://www.nsa.gov/ia/mitigation_guidance/security_configur...

Your link shows us how the NSA would like you to secure your systems, not their love for hiding their exploits behind closed sourced code. No snark points needed here!

Why would NSA bother with OSs, if they could get direct access to firmware, theoretically?

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#158

Post by maximilianburke » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:20 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #152

halo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> bloated GNU tools If you were coming from the Unix/BSD world, I could understand this, but how is using a GUI for everything considered elegant, while GNU tools are considered "bloated?" Doesn't the GUI necessarily "bloat" the program more than a few extra command-line options would?

You don't need a GUI; PowerShell is a powerful command line scripting environment.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#159

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

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.

This is correct - there are 6 Windows 10 SKUs[1]. 4 if you exclude the mobile SKUs. The "only 2 SKUs" was just a rumour/wish.

I'm echoing speculation I read elsewhere: the reason for the numerous versions is Federal Money. The US government demands that it pays the lowest price the vendors offers an item for. Since Microsoft likes to offer discounts to universities, the government would be entitled to the lowest discounted price on the SKU. Their solution is to make Education & Enterprise versions and maintain the price disparity. Money trumps simplicity.

https://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/05/13/introdu...

(edited for clarity)

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#160

Post by WorldWideWayne » Tue, Jun 02, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

cturner wrote: 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…

Supporting developers means making their lives easy by giving them streamlined systems and frameworks, not throwing a hodge-podge of of command line utilities at them or exposing them to the messy bazaar of the FOSS world.

I'd say Microsoft has been been more pro-developer than most and I'm super glad that I chose to live primarily in their ecosystem because they make my life easy compared to the mess I have to put up with in Unix-land.