I guess better late than never, eh?
Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
291–300 of 404 posts
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reasonable question. Only ones that affect the network surface footprint, so none here as it's on a private VLAN.
that's a pretty terrible practice no matter what OS you're using.
Why?
I assume that "private VLAN" means it isn't exposed to potential external attack.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Still no alt+F1 to alt+F7, right? That would be cool to have. I'm really curious, as I made the leap to Ubuntu years ago and the most I've touched windows is doing reinstalls on friends computers.
It's true, but you can log in multiple users, or log in users multiple times, and these run in distinct areas, kind of like virtual terminals. These are called "sessions." http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/07/24/sessio...
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#294Earlier 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…
Sounds awesome, how would you recommend someone get started with PS? I'm CLI-only dev, use Node, code tons of front-end but all I use to do is CMDer, VIM, and SSH all running together.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#295Earlier 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.
Powershell will need some kind of text editor though, even if it's just something as simple as nano.
Edlin. The Standard Microsoft Text Editor.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#296For 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." I'm not sure I understand what you mean here ... My OS X desktop/laptop (for instance) have ssh on them, but I almost never ssh to them ... I just open up a local terminal window. Genuinely curious as to why one would ssh to their win…
Genuinely curious as to why one would use cmd.exe instead of PowerShell?
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#297Getting there slowly... For the moment I use `babun` and everything works well. http://babun.github.io/
thanks for the link :D looks great, as I am currently STILL using UnxUtils plus other stuff
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#298For 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…
> there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company.
That hasn't been my experience. Microsoft has always been supportive of my compiler company, even providing Microsoft tools to be bundled with it. In fact, a huge reason MSDOS was so enormously successful was the ease with which anyone could (and did) write and ship software for it. Microsoft was well aware of this and supported it.
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
TBH I couldn't find a decent book or resource and sort of hacked my way around for a year or so. It had a good build in manual (get-help). This is a good poke at the fundamentals of my example: Scrape a page: $flight = " LH3396" $url = "http://bing.com?q=flight status for $flight" $result = Invoke-WebRequest $url $elements = $result.AllElements | Where Class -eq "ans" | Select -First 1 -ExpandProperty innerText Hit a…
This is really cool (and unfortunately I know nothing about powershell, I'm young and dumb) but I'm pretty sure this is replicable line for line with bash (and curl, maybe awk too idk). Am I wrong?
Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not using default ports will mildly confuse automated scans and do absolutely nothing to a determined attacker. Or somebody with nmap, which is not the same thing. If you're whitelisting IPs, you may as well run it on port 22.
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.
> Trust me I have a friend who loves breaking into my personal server.
Sterling work establishing your own competence there.