Live data from Hacker News

Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

blogs.msdn.com

191–200 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#191

YES! Now, can we please get a proper terminal? :)

PowerShell? Unless you mean the normal Unix terminal, which is 40 years old?

I jest, somewhat.

You oddly never get BASH users complaining about the lack of Batch file support, but it is always vocal the other way around.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#192
post #163

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…

I'm not even a Powershell fan, I'm just not especially fond of Unix-likes, which feel like a local maximum that has turned into an unchangable standard. I think Unix-like environments feel dated, clunky and there's a tendancy for it to result in permanent bloat, stagnation and a web of interdependencies. I understand that lots of people are familiar with Unix-like tools and their many idiosyncrasies and like to be ab…

Lots of people keep using the word "bloat" to refer to Linux as opposed to Windows, which I find bizarre given that it's long been a criticism in the other direction.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#193
post #101
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 AFA…

This is very true. The Windows software market is colossal, and the ability to run software from decades ago is a feature not found on any other OS group (Linux + OSX included).

I know we all like to think and strangely wish that we could replace Windows server with Linux boxes and Windows desktops with Linux desktops but the sad truth is that there is no good replacement for Exchange or Active Directory (and the myriad of extensions that you can install into it; even writing one isn't that hard), including all the mobile OS support for mail on it (and calendars), nor is there a Linux desktop that would be instantly comfortable and navigable to 90% of Windows users. My mum would be lost, for certain. I would be lost under Unity or GNOME3 (only with blind rage I feel).

It's a bit of a pipe dream, or very unrealistic. And I say this as a fan and user of all the major systems (and having been Linux and Windows sysadmin in the past).

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which needs a full desktop environment to be used. Or am I wrong?

It doesn't involve the desktop environment unless you ask it to, and you can invoke it remotely from outside. The system does boot to GUI, but the overhead of that with nobody logged in is not very large.

Embedded Windows, on the other hand, is forever the poor relation.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#195

Wonderful. 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…

MS has supported event forwarding since 2003. You can set machines to forward events or have them pulled. The events are XML that conform to a published schema. There is a WMI call that call pull the aggregated events off the collection servers.

I heard this kind of thing from a vendor the other day. It's like people don't even try to learn how it works.

Why are they different? The event log has some transactional guarantees that were required for a specific kind of security evaluation...C2? I can't remember the rest.

The thing is...you don't have to install a client on the domain controllers. You can setup forwarding to some log hosts and collect them there.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#196

The only thing left for them to do is to include Cygwin (or some equivalent) as a built-in Windows feature. Hell's not only freezing over, but freezing everything else with it. What a time to be alive.

Lots of people keep saying this on this thread, but why would you want GNU tools on Windows ? Have you ever wanted to put Apple's runtime on your Linux box? Or MSVC runtimes on your Linux machine?

Weirdly, everyone wants the opposite.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#197
post #179
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.

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/

At least a few people want vi-mode in the shell, see https://github.com/lzybkr/PSReadLine/pull/101

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#198

Wonderful. 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…

I've been historically what can be described a Microsoft hater and I have to tell you, missing official SSH support has never been a hate generator and insinuating otherwise is insulting. The first reason for which I have historically hated Microsoft is because of how they fought open standards. I can't believe that Microsoft changed in any meaningful way when I can't get a Lumia phone or Outlook to work with CalDAV…

CalDAV and CardDAV are supported on Windows Phone 8 since GDR2 as the method to sync Gmail accounts. OneDrive supports ODF via Office Online. OpenGL runs fine on Windows and is less relevant now than ever thanks to Metal and DirectX 12, etc. Oh and the new Outlook app for iOS and Android also has broad support for competitors and open standards. Sure, it's through the cloud, but it works. If you want to punish companies for sand boxing, sure, but hey, how are those iOS viruses and spyware treating you? Even Google's making a kid-safe part of their app store. There will always be ways to develop or hack these devices, but safer, saner defaults are appreciated by the majority of non-technical users.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Microsoft has supported event forwarding since 2003. You can set the machines to push events or have them pulled.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#200

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…

> The only thing I still hate is windows update. all those "2 liners" don't mean much if you have to reboot your box every 2 days to apply more emergency 0-day security patches.

Yeah every 2 days I have to reboot all of our kit to apply updates...

http://i.imgur.com/5ZxiLGf.png

Post reply on HN