261–270 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
conhost is getting some upgrades in Windows 10: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Windows10GetsAFreshCommandProm... Given that a lot of new development in the Windows world is focused on the console, I expect that we will see more enhancements in the future.
One thing that I'm not 100% clear on: have they fixed multi-line selection in the Win10 command prompt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
One of the big missing features in Windows is lack of SSH transport. Sure, its terminal emulator is adequate at best, but it does have one. The major news here is that it will finally be possible to remote into a Windows host the same way we remote to everything else.
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?
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 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 tab…
But I've never tried it; just came across it recently as a homebrew update.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If lawsuits and not supporting something you like makes you dislike a company, I'd guess that almost all corporations would be on your 'hate' list. My dislike of MS is quite simple. I simply don't like their products. That doesn't mean I automatically love OSX or Linux. IMO OSX is a mediocre product with a polished user experience and Linux as a desktop is just broken. Unfortunately, I can't say there is a single OS…
I'd guess that almost all corporations would be on your 'hate' list. This is a popular position, yes. But Microsoft in particular have tried to make Linux impossible on a number of occasions over a period of decades, so it'll take a while for the guerillas to come out of the jungle and stop fighting them. But now they're in competition with the platform that want to annex all your personal data and the platform that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
> Who uses vi-mode in the shell? There's at least a dozen of us. It's my wishlist :) > Windows could do a lot better than curses by > providing easy means to pop MFC dialogs from > the shell to prompt the user. When you work in an environment with a lot of hosts, Windows is a laborious partner. You need to open remote desktops and click windows to push the OS around. With unix you often have processes that start out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it makes it harder and more of a pain. Trust me I have a friend who loves breaking into my personal server. That one trick two ssh running on different ports screwed with him for a long, long time. He is a genius of a hacker and has been doing it for a living for years. When he finally got in he was so pissed that threw him.
You are describing an anecdotal instance of a person whose capabilities are not established being thrown by something that nmap will catch on a normal scan. Color me skeptical. I shall decline to "trust you."
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.
Even better don't use default ports. Or have a second ssh that doesn't except any IP address at port 22 and than have your non-standard port with keys and limited user names and if possible a white list of your IP addresses.