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

171–180 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#171

Post by SixSigma »

Alupis wrote: post #145
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…

Never thought I'd say this... but I can foresee a future release of Windows being touted as POSIX compliant.

It is but only in some editions

Interix release 6.1 is available for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 for the Enterprise and Ultimate editions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#172

Post by MartinCron »

lucb1e wrote: post #134
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.

> complicated third-party installs Wait, isn't that nearly everything you ever install on Windows? Not complicated per se, but everything is third party and not signed by people maintaining Windows (as with most GNU/Linux distributions).

Chocolately helps with at least the "complicated" part. Has helped me fall in love with Windows (7) again.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#173

Post by matthewmacleod »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #160
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 u…

I would say that's a minority view at best.

There are two worlds in desktop software development – the "open-source-unix-y" world, and the "Microsoft" world. The former has typically meant having a broad range of excellent tooling; it's certainly been a bit messy, but that's mostly because of the ease with which things have been able to change and develop. Even development in the Apple sphere has always involved the same basic tools.

On the other hand, development using the Microsoft platform has traditionally been an entirely different process and toolset. It's cleaner, in the sense that there's less diversity and a greater focus on compatibility (to some extent). But the tradeoff there is that it's often been slow to keep up with developments in the rest of the industry, and did not allow users access to open, standard tooling that other developers had.

That is changing now, and we'll start to see the best of the traditionally locked-away Microsoft platform make its way into open-source platforms, and vice versa. That's not a bad thing, but I think it's pretty foolish to consider their past stance as 'developer-friendly', especially considering the number of frameworks and toolkits they've pushed and abandoned over the past decade. Hopefully, that is changing.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#174

Post by joshuacc »

c0wb0yc0d3r wrote: post #67
phren0logy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a recent HN thread, someone pointed me to MobaXterm ( http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/ ) and I have gladly deleted PuTTY.

Do you know if it has support for using an external text editor instead of the one they provide?

It does.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#175

Post by tim333 »

currysausage wrote: post #169
wumbernang wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 end…

> 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. This sounds cool. Can you recommend terse resources for getting to know PowerShell? Is MSDN the best place to look for docs or are there better places to go?

Not an expert but there's a "PowerShell in 10 Minutes" here:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/1...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#176

Post by david-given »

wumbernang wrote: post #144
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.

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 end…

I did find an open source implementation here:

http://pash.sourceforge.net/

Don't know if it's any good --- never tried it; it says it's about half complete, but I don't know if it's a useful half.

After looking at the docs, you could do a lot of what Powershell does with Unix shells; you'd need a different set of conventions, where instead of using unformatted text as an intermediate format you used a streamable table format with support for metadata. Then you could have commands like 'where', which would be awesome.

$ xps | xwhere user -eq dg | xsort -desc rss | xtop 10 | xecho "rss=@.rss cmdline=@.command"

...or something. sh syntax is a bit lacking; PowerShell's got lots of useful builtins, including having native support for the format so it knows how to present it to the user. An sh version would conversion routines back and forth from text.

The tricky part would be bootstrapping; getting enough functionality quickly enough that enough people would start using it to make it sustainable.

I'd still rather use this than faff around with awk, though. I've done way too much of that. And if I never have to parse the output of ls -l using cut again, I will be a happy person.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#177

Post by apalmer »

floatboth wrote: post #114
talideon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come back to us when you've found a way to implement the good stuff that Windows has, such as IOCPs: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa3... And no, epoll isn't enough.

If I remember correctly, the node.js team needed a lot of help from experienced Windows developers (even from Microsoft itself??) to add IOCP support to libuv. I think kqueue is the best (well I guess I'm a BSD fan :D) but in general: app developers generally don't care about this, they just use libuv or libevent or something like that. Does Windows really have "good stuff" for developers? .NET is excellent, but the…

> .NET is excellent, but the lower level APIs look horrible.

It is, more or less, what it is. lower level APIs cannot change without breaking backwards compatiblity. Microsoft as an organization is all about backwards compatibility. So this is just not going away, like you say there is stuff in there from DOS that will just not ever go away.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#179

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Of that list, I can only see downsides to the middle ones: "emacs, vi, netcat, shell option for vi-mode, rc-file with preferences". Who uses vi-mode in the shell? And Windows already has a boatload of editors.

Windows could do a lot better than curses by providing easy means to pop MFC dialogs from the shell to prompt the user.

Zip and unzip are already available, in https://pscx.codeplex.com/

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#180

Post by mrweasel »

Wonderful, and I am a bit interested in seeing how well the Microsoft guys and the OpenBSD/OpenSSH team is going to interact. I have no doubt the the Microsoft developers are nothing but professional, but still the OpenSSH people seem to have pretty high standard.
Post reply on HN