Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#371

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

wumbernang wrote: post #349

rodgerd wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be great to know no-one within your environment will ever do anything wrong. Or download anything that will do anything wrong. Or visit any websites than can hijack your browser into doing anything wrong.

a) Human error is a possibility but that's not something that can be eliminated. b) They won't download anything wrong. There's no route to the internet for this machine. c) They won't visit any web sites. There's no browser on the machine. This is a core profile windows server installation. Don't assume that we don't know what we're doing. We have 500ish Windows Server machines floating around.

[deleted]

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#372

Post by aidos » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

ygra wrote: post #351

aidos wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment was useful, so not totally in vein :-) Just incited me to have a little look at powershell (read through [0], useful intro). It looks nice, I can definitely see the utility in have a simple object model for transferring information between processes. In nix land you get pretty good at extracting data from simple text forms, though sometimes it's harder than it should be. One thing that jumped out at me t…

You found three ways of doing things that all do filtering at a different level. The -Filter parameter employs filtering on the provider side¹ of PowerShell, i.e. in the part that queries the file system directly. Essentially your filter is probably passed directly to FindFirstFile/FindNextFile which means that fewer results have to travel fewer layers. The -Path parameter (implied in ls .exe as it's the first parame…

Oh yeah, I can see how the different filtering spots would make a difference.

Was just a bit surprised at the overhead of adding a command to the pipeline. A similar setup on linux would be like the following I guess (on a folder with 4600 files, 170 matching files).

    20ms time ls *.pdf
    35ms time find -maxdepth 1 -iname '*.pdf'
    60ms time ls | egrep '.pdf$'

I was more wondering if adding each additional command added so much overhead. Your numbers looks much more reasonable. Maybe the article I read had a big step due to filesystem / caching or something.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#373

Post by dspillett » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

owenfi wrote: post #247

As an only occasional Windows user, I wasn't sure what PowerShell was (sounds 3rd party to me, a la Cygwin). Turns out it is a 1st party command line tool and scripting engine. From a glance it looks to use similar syntax to CMD.exe, but sits side-by-side with it, not built on top.

Looking at it from a Unix-a-like background Powershell provides a script capable shell (ala bash and friends) including built-ins that do useful stuff in some of the posix and gnu externals commonly called from shell scripts. Rather than working primarily on text and streams like most unix-a-like shells it is object based. Through the relevant modules and the objects they provide it allows pretty complete interaction with the Windows management infrastructure so in the right hands it can be very powerful. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell. On any Windows machine that isn't obsolete or close to (the 2003 editions fall out of support very soon and XP already has, anything newer had PS integrated) you'll find at least v2, usually v3 or higher.

I keep meaning to find a good book or online reference and spend some time properly learning how to use the thing... For some things it'll replace my need to have cygwin installed everywhere, and it might allow me to do some stuff "better".

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#374

Post by ethbro » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

nivla wrote: post #243

pjc50 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man after years of hearing how bloated Windows is compared to other OSes, I was expecting my first Windows Phone to be the same. But nope to my surprise it was fast and fluid, even on low end devices! I guess, the same can also be said about Win8/Win10 compared to Vista/Win7. Bloat seems like dirt that accumulates overtime. A little bit of cleanup and optimization can sometimes do magic.

Bloat and legacy support are two sides of the same coin.

Microsoft chose one answer to that, Apple another.

I think Windows Phone is a clear example that Microsoft has technical chops when starting clean, it just lacks business willpower to make decisions that favor performance over support.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#375

Post by wumbernang » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #365

wumbernang wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It merely exploits some fundamental differences on how humans operate between two markets and turns that into real-time information for me on which I can make trade decisions. This isn't stocks, shares, futures etc for ref either. I don't want to say any more nor post any code as it's unique and a good earner at the moment.

> It merely exploits some fundamental differences on how humans operate between two markets and turns that into real-time information for me on which I can make trade decisions Let me guess: arbitrage applied to sports gambling. Wink my way if I'm on the right track.

No wink. Doesn't involve betting. Although that's a good idea :)

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#376

Post by WorldWideWayne » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 3:00 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #173

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... that's a minority view at best.

Not at all - go ask any devops/IT group running in small, medium and large businesses to replace their Microsoft tools with a competitor's (if you can find one) or FOSS tools and they'll laugh in your face because of how easy Microsoft makes things for them.

> But the tradeoff there is that it's often been slow to keep up with developments in the rest of the industry...

Considering that Microsoft kicked off Web 2.0 with the invention of XMLHTTPRequest and the iframe, I'd have to disagree.

Your whole argument is closed == bad and that's simply not true.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#377

Post by baldfat » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 4:08 PM UTC

DrPizza wrote: post #300

baldfat wrote: post #219

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.

> Trust me I have a friend who loves breaking into my personal server. Sterling work establishing your own competence there.

Not my competence it his competence I trust and I got him good with that one since it never occurred to him that one stupid trick messed with him for so long. Lie 5 minutes a month.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#378

Post by krylon » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #193

krylon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 myr…

Well, as far as Active Directory goes, I think it is possible to run a "Windows" domain using Samba.

But apart from that, I tend to agree. I still want to believe it is possible to get Windows users comfortable on a Unix desktop, it works with OS X, after all. But practically speaking, you are right.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#379

Post by jyrkesh » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

jevgeni wrote: post #155

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.

No, actually. Ctrl+V and Ctrl+C are implemented in PSReadline, but those features have also been added to the Windows 10 console host (i.e. they work with cmd.exe).

The other big one for me that's been added to the console host is "line wrapping selection". You can actually highlight text now correctly as opposed to copying a rectangular block of text (though the latter is sometimes useful, just hold Alt when you're highlighting).

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#380

Post by matthewmacleod » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #376

matthewmacleod wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... that's a minority view at best. Not at all - go ask any devops/IT group running in small, medium and large businesses to replace their Microsoft tools with a competitor's (if you can find one) or FOSS tools and they'll laugh in your face because of how easy Microsoft makes things for them. > But the tradeoff there is that it's often been slow to keep up with developments in the rest of the industry... Consideri…

Not at all - go ask any devops/IT group running in small, medium and large businesses to replace their Microsoft tools with a competitor's (if you can find one) or FOSS tools and they'll laugh in your face because of how easy Microsoft makes things for them.

IT is a bit of an outlier. But I must admit, I've never encountered any self-described 'DevOps' who uses anything but Unix. Different spheres, perhaps.

Considering that Microsoft kicked off Web 2.0 with the invention of XMLHTTPRequest and the iframe, I'd have to disagree.

That's a bit shallow – every technology company has developed some tools and techniques that were ahead of the curve. It doesn't mean that their entire platform is.

Your whole argument is closed == bad and that's simply not true.

No, my argument is that closed has a very large downside, and that if you don't bear that in mind it's going to harm you later.