Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#391

Post by Yaggo » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 9:16 AM UTC

krylon wrote: post #385

72deluxe wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run the domain but I don't think Samba implements Users and Computers plugins etc. does it? I wrote one (the version 2 SDK was unfathomable, the SDK version 3 in C# was much better). It let us add extra fields into AD (just like any LDAP implementation) and then present extra tab sheets within AD users and computers for configuring additional external services that we had written (we wrote some middleware to…

> You can run the domain but I don't think Samba implements Users and Computers plugins etc. does it? Do you mean mmc.exe snapins? I have to admit, I never tried. > OSX is Stealth Unix. Clever. The integration of X11 into the desktop is pretty poor, and I miss a decent package manager like apt-get or yum. Apart from that, I completely agree. Apple has managed something quite impressive by building an operating system…

Just out of curiosity, don't you consider homebrew "decent" or do you want official package manager from Apple? (App Store effectively being Apple's solution?)

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#392

Post by 72deluxe » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 10:04 AM UTC

krylon wrote: post #385

72deluxe wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run the domain but I don't think Samba implements Users and Computers plugins etc. does it? I wrote one (the version 2 SDK was unfathomable, the SDK version 3 in C# was much better). It let us add extra fields into AD (just like any LDAP implementation) and then present extra tab sheets within AD users and computers for configuring additional external services that we had written (we wrote some middleware to…

> You can run the domain but I don't think Samba implements Users and Computers plugins etc. does it? Do you mean mmc.exe snapins? I have to admit, I never tried. > OSX is Stealth Unix. Clever. The integration of X11 into the desktop is pretty poor, and I miss a decent package manager like apt-get or yum. Apart from that, I completely agree. Apple has managed something quite impressive by building an operating system…

The X11 integration is really bad. Now that they don't bundle it along with the default installation (XQuartz instead, that you must fetch yourself), how can I run xclock after installing OSX?

In truth, the lack of cmd-tabbing support to X11 apps is irritating, as is the menus on the windows being in the wrong place. I can see why they didn't fully support it though - X11 just doesn't fit in with their Quartz system. If you turn on Quartz Debugging and do things like "show tracking rectangles" X11 windows are a complete unknown to Quartz.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#393

Post by sudioStudio64 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #387

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After coding for several years, the two aren't all that different. I'm not saying that I think that the UNIX WAY is ever going to go away...but I do think that extreme scale makes the programmatic approach to configuration make more sense. Instead of treating every system as a "system" you treat it as a simple programmable node among thousands of others. You are already starting to see Linux go this way with systemD.…

I think you have it backwards. Sysadmins are not the ones arguing in favor of "the one true way". That is squarely in the newer breed of developer/admin devops hybrid that the systemd camp is pandering. For sysadmins the nix way of text in and text out allow systems to be as simple or complex as they need to be, because parts can be swapped, added or removed as needed. The kernel don't care what your initial process…

I'm not trying to be facetious...What part of X11 matches the text in/text out -- small programs that do one thing -- mode? Even Linus says that "model" doesn't really apply any more.

Maybe systemD and it's author's are whatever...I think that the CoreOS people are demonstrating that programmatic administration is the best model for massive scale. That's my only point.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#394

Post by sudioStudio64 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #364

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After coding for several years, the two aren't all that different. I'm not saying that I think that the UNIX WAY is ever going to go away...but I do think that extreme scale makes the programmatic approach to configuration make more sense. Instead of treating every system as a "system" you treat it as a simple programmable node among thousands of others. You are already starting to see Linux go this way with systemD.…

That's quite the most carefully hedged "please don't kill me" comment I've read in a long time :) I suspect there's a scaling issue in here as well. Tools optimised for large numbers of systems are always going to look clunky and overdesigned when used on a single system. With regard to APIs, I think this is one area where the availability of source is quite critical. "Control Panel" is clearly a tool that manipulate…

Wow. Before I start...that's cool that you are using CE. What are you using it for? (If you don't mind and have a minute.)

I get what you are saying. I don't think that the programmatic model of administration works for running something like PeopleSoft, right? You use large hosts that are very special and benefit from the traditional admin model. It's very much a "pet"...where the CoreOS model is more "cattle".

I'm more ambivalent about access to source as long as there is good documentation and debugging tools. I'm not going to fix a kernel bug at this point in my development. Maybe one day...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#395

Post by digi_owl » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #393

digi_owl wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have it backwards. Sysadmins are not the ones arguing in favor of "the one true way". That is squarely in the newer breed of developer/admin devops hybrid that the systemd camp is pandering. For sysadmins the nix way of text in and text out allow systems to be as simple or complex as they need to be, because parts can be swapped, added or removed as needed. The kernel don't care what your initial process…

I'm not trying to be facetious...What part of X11 matches the text in/text out -- small programs that do one thing -- mode? Even Linus says that "model" doesn't really apply any more. Maybe systemD and it's author's are whatever...I think that the CoreOS people are demonstrating that programmatic administration is the best model for massive scale. That's my only point.

X11 may be an odd duck out in the nix world, but then i started as a way to put graphical terminals on mainframes.
As such the server end started out being a beast all its own...

Still more flexible than systemd though, as i can run a X server on, say, Windows to get the UI of a program running any kind of nix out there.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#396

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #342

yellowapple wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested specifically with GNU's tools, just standard Unix tools in general; Microsoft could easily use Cygwin (for example) as a reference point for porting/packaging the BSD userland to/for Windows, for example. > Have you ever wanted to put Apple's runtime on your Linux box? Not in that sense, but a Linux + BSD userland would be neat. Apple's runtime is basically that minus Linux plus Mach/XNU plus Cocoa…

Out of interest, what's wrong with MSVC runtimes? Plenty of software has been written using it. Doesn't Wine basically implement MSVC runtimes?

And said software is typicaly bloated and buggy relative to its Unix counterparts. The MVSC runtimes are popular solely because Windows is popular.

Wine is a stopgap for software that's still reliant on Windows. The preferred approach would be for that software to instead be properly ported, which would include using a proper libc and executable package format (like ELF).

That said, my opinions aren't representative of everyone in the world. There are projects like Wine and (more interestingly) winelib that implement the MSVC, and those are popular projects (the former more popular, though the latter closer to being solely MSVC on Linux).

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#397

Post by sudioStudio64 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

silon3 wrote: post #316

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. The guy that wrote PowerShell says that UNIX is document oriented configuration while windows is API oriented configuration. To get into it in any depth you have to approach windows programmatically. The most power is through C\C++...to be a good windows admin you need to read the docs about how you interact with different subsystems, even if you aren't going to code against them.

> You are right. The guy that wrote PowerShell says that UNIX is document oriented configuration while windows is API oriented configuration. That's an interesting way of putting it. I strongly prefer the Unix way then,(just avoid turing complete config languages).

Also, to be fair...someone has to write code to turn the text config file into bits in memory.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#398

Post by krylon » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

Yaggo wrote: post #391

krylon wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can run the domain but I don't think Samba implements Users and Computers plugins etc. does it? Do you mean mmc.exe snapins? I have to admit, I never tried. > OSX is Stealth Unix. Clever. The integration of X11 into the desktop is pretty poor, and I miss a decent package manager like apt-get or yum. Apart from that, I completely agree. Apple has managed something quite impressive by building an operating system…

Just out of curiosity, don't you consider homebrew "decent" or do you want official package manager from Apple? (App Store effectively being Apple's solution?)

I use MacPorts which works well enough, but it would be nicer if something comparable came as part of the base system.

Specifically it is annoying that the compiler does not find headers and libraries installed through MacPorts by default. Yes, you can tell the compiler to look for those headers and libraries easily enough. But compared to the experience on, say, Debian, it is slightly annoying.

Having said that, let me point out that I have owned a Mac for ~19 months now, and while my initial plan was to give OS X a quick try, then install Debian, I have not done so.

Also, if somebody has experience with both homebrew and MacPorts, I would appreciate if that someone could tell me about the differences and the respective pros and cons of both.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#399

Post by beachstartup » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

hackmiester wrote: post #292

beachstartup wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#400

Post by kstrauser » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 7:48 PM UTC

pbowyer wrote: post #325

kstrauser wrote: post #47

OH THANK GOD. I'm using Ansible to manage Windows, and today that means fooling around with WinRM. For example, that involved adding Kerberos support to Ansible so that it could authenticate against Windows domain accounts, because those are authed differently from local machine accounts. Assuming the project succeeds this time around, it's going to be way easier to incorporate Windows servers into Unix-centric manag…

Is there any noise about being able to use Windows as an Ansible host? I like Ansible far more than the alternatives, but I can't make developers I work with keep a Linux VM running just to run Ansible to provision a development VM. That would be... crazy.

Not that I've heard, but I'm just a regular contributor and not a maintainer. The last I heard, the chances were somewhere between "when pigs fly" and "LOL no". Then again, at one point the idea of supporting Windows hosts was unlikely and yet here we are.

That said, I wonder how well it'd run under Cygwin. I've never even attempted this experiment so I don't have the foggiest.