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

221–230 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#221

Post by XorNot »

david-given wrote: post #176
wumbernang wrote: post #144

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…

Isn't this just complaining you want a different tool? The entire Powershell format depends on, amongst other things, the object interface being sane, existing, and usable.

The whole point of the GNU system was working around the usual "I can see it here, need this bit, and want to put it there". If you need to do something really specific a lot, you write a tool which does that.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#222

Post by nsxwolf »

McGlockenshire wrote: post #156
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?

There are dramatic improvements in the command prompt windows in Win10: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Windows10GetsAFreshCommandProm...

Just tried it in a VM install. Seems pretty good. A long time coming. Could use tabbed views, though.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#223

Post by oldmanjay »

pjc50 wrote: post #192
halo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even a Powershell fan, I'm just not especially fond of Unix-likes, which feel like a local maximum that has turned into an unchangable standard. I think Unix-like environments feel dated, clunky and there's a tendancy for it to result in permanent bloat, stagnation and a web of interdependencies. I understand that lots of people are familiar with Unix-like tools and their many idiosyncrasies and like to be ab…

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.

Since the word is used mainly as an insult due to people having emotional attachments to technology, the real question in my mind is how did you not find it bizarre on every use.

Or I guess another way to say it is that "bloated" is only a measurement of the speaker's disdain for the software under question. It has little relationship with any actual quality measurement, generally. Bizarre on its face, to me.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#225

Post by pjc50 »

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…

The object-pipeline system was a real, important innovation. Bourne shell has a number of known deficiencies, especially as soon as your filenames have spaces in them. I think those were reasonable reasons.

PS remoting and PS security restrictions on script files are the wheels that have been reinvented square.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#226

Post by _hnwo »

egwor wrote: post #224
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #12

I happily await the day when I no longer need to install PuTTY on all of my fresh Windows installs.

What's wrong with putty? I've been happily using it for a few years. What have I been missing out on?!

just read this: https://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-saf...

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#228

Post by jfuhrman »

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…

This feature is more useful on Windows Server.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#229

Post by nirvdrum »

digler999 wrote: post #165
wumbernang wrote: post #144

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…

> The only thing I still hate is windows update. all those "2 liners" don't mean much if you have to reboot your box every 2 days to apply more emergency 0-day security patches.

One thing that became clear with Heartbleed is people apply security updates and don't restart the necessary services to pick up the updates. Rebooting the entire OS is the nuclear option, but it's incredibly effective.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#230

Post by rbanffy »

ised wrote: post #117

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=2391 If I am forced to use Windows in an Enterprise setting, then I just go to Control Panel and enable the POSIX layer ("SUA"), then download the SDK and install. With some minor changes to the %Path, it just works. SUA has older versions of tcsh, ksh, vi and many other utilities, including an older Perl and an old GCC toolchain that does work. It is 4.2BSD bas…

When I am forced to use Windows, I immediately download Cygwin.

I am almost tempted to congratulate Microsoft and welcome them to 1995, although I am quite sure Cygwin didn't have ssh back then.

Post reply on HN