Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#131

Post by parkovski »

bigdubs wrote: post #107
krylon wrote: post #84

Finally! PowerShell Remoting just plain sucks, at least it has for me. I've always wondered why the PowerShell developer(s?) would do something so needlessly contrived when SSH has been around for, like, twenty years or so. This will definitely make my job easier! Or at least more convenient.

"I've always wondered why the PowerShell developers ..." Think about the beginning of that sentence. They invented a new console language, when bash has been around forever and C# is a better programming language generally and can be run as a scripted language with a little finagling. I don't think the PS team is bad (or PS itself for that matter), I just think there was a lot of re-inventing of the wheel for no reas…

They didn't reinvent the wheel. Bash was intended for a Unix environment with all the corresponding utilities.

PowerShell was designed for a Windows/.NET environment, which is undeniably different, and they also took the opportunity to create an object oriented shell instead of a text oriented one.

I also like C# but I do feel it makes a pretty poor scripting/shell language.

I do think SSH is long overdue, but based on the post it looks like the developers have always been on the right track - management just wouldn't let them do it. Really glad this is changing.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#132

Post by rsync »

cturner wrote: post #60

For 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 windows system rather than just run cmd.exe ...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#133

Post by stoic »

rsync wrote: post #132
cturner wrote: post #60

For 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…

It is SSH versus RDP, not SSH versus cmd.exe.

Not all of us who manage (partial) Windows environments run Windows or care to click around a whole bunch of times if we can just use the terminal we've already got open & focused.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#134

Post by lucb1e »

cturner wrote: post #86
astazangasta wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cygwin has all of those things and ssh server support.

Fair. But I couldn't target my crappy roguelikes at cygwin - requires complicated third-party installs. I ran cygwin-with-ssh heavily for a while in 2003. It was a hell of a thing to get it going. Then I had trouble getting it to work on a new computer and gave up. Shouldn't be surprised that it got good again.

> complicated third-party installs

Wait, isn't that nearly everything you ever install on Windows? Not complicated per se, but everything is third party and not signed by people maintaining Windows (as with most GNU/Linux distributions).

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#135

Post by claudiusd »

cturner wrote: post #60

For 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.

Baby steps! SSH is a transport protocol, not a shell. If you SSH to your own box, you're just going to get PowerShell.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#136

Post by jrochkind1 »

joshstrange wrote: post #122
daeken wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how they are handling Win 10 (Both in versions and cost) I'm a bit confused by this. It's free for any genuine Windows 7 or 8 user, and $99 to $199 for anyone else. There are two SKUs (Home and Pro), rather than the multitude with XP or Vista. How is this not a reasonable approach? Especially since Windows 10 is supposed to be the last Windows release of this kind.

> It's free for any genuine Windows 7 or 8 user, and $99 to $199 for anyone else. It's free ONLY if you get it in their window (1 year I think) it just seems unnecessarily complicated when they should just make it free. Also they have 3-4 more SKUs than just Home and Pro (which really should only be 1). > Windows 10 is supposed to be the last Windows release of this kind I'll believe that when I see it also there is…

Why should microsoft just make their primary commercial product free for everyone? I am curious to know what percentage of MS profit is from OS sales, but I assume it's very high?

Apple can make their OS free cause they make money on the hardware, which 99% of people buy from them to run the OS on.

And of course linux and other open source is another story.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#137

Post by cactusface »

Cyph0n wrote: post #108
nacs wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try Babun [1] for a pre-configured Cygwin setup with an easy install. I've been using it for the past month or so and it works great. [1]: http://babun.github.io/

That looks amazing. Thanks for the link.

Alternatively MSYS + MinGW + GCC / MSVC.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#138

Post by zokier »

eropple wrote: post #127
zokier wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sound nice-to-have features, but (personally) I don't think the lack of those makes something "super clunky and awkward to use", especially in comparison to standard terminals. Do you think xterm is too super clunky because it lacks all the bells and whistles? I still do not see where the lack of empathy and tastelessness is apparent in ISE.

I don't think xterm is clunky, no. It doesn't try to help me, but it also doesn't get in my way. iTerm2's feature set does not increase the friction of dealing with the shell inside of it. Literally every time I have to open up ISE, I go, "jesus, why the hell is it doing things ?". The experience is just straight-up repellent. It's hard to really describe past "I'd rather click a mouse than use this." And that never…

Honestly, I'm getting really interested in what you find so offensive in ISE. I mean, I can see it being not so great, but being straight out offensive I can't really understand. It is perfectly understandable if you don't like PowerShell (it is kinda weird). But ISE? The most different thing in it is a "fancy" tab-completion, and that hardly can be reason to so deep hatred.

And I'm not saying ISE is the best thing ever or anything, but it is a significant step up from conhost, and honestly not really lot worse than xterm in many ways.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#139

Post by neil_s »

TIL that the Windows Dev team have a forum for engaging with users about console features: https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/266908-command-prompt

Back when I interned at MS in 2013, people were alarmed when I spoke to users on some forums about their complaints because I was designing a related feature. We had to check with legal whether I would have to delete all my posts!

Post reply on HN