Slashdot Mirror


Windows 10 Gets Core Console Host Enhancements (nivot.org)

x0n writes: As of Windows 10 TH2 (10.0.1058), the core console subsystem has support for a large number of ANSI and VT100 escape sequences. This is likely to prepare for full Open SSH server/client integration, which is already underway over on github. It looks like xterm is finally coming to Windows. OpenSSH was previously announced (last year) by the very forward-looking PowerShell team. The linked article provides some context, and explains that the console host isn't the same as either cmd.exe or powershell.exe, but there is a lot of overlap in functionality.

49 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is this actually news for nerds?

    1. Re:News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      nerds have already cygwin, msys or something like that. nerds needed this functionality so long that they actualy resigned reminding m$ that terminal is a not a dirty word.
      to paraphrase: a good console is like a good dog - very rare. a good console with a good language is like a dog speaking norwegian,sir - even rarer. i am mentioning this because in windows 10 they actually got cmd.exe so much better, but the underlying bat language feels like yesterday's vomit. i guess, that's where powershell comes in, but this dog speaks hungarian and i have no true will to learn yet another language specific for some minor platform.

      so 2016 will be the year of the console on windows, a bit ironic

  2. So Let Me Get This Straight by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    So let me get this straight. Windows is getting the kind of terminal support *nix has had for nearly 50 years? Wow, I mean, how fucking innovative of MS.

    Fuck fuck fuck.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re: So Let Me Get This Straight by mattcoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does it have to be innovative to be a good thing? Should they just not do it if it has already been done by someone else?

    2. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just have to ask all you clever little MS types. As Microsoft moves Windows Server closer to a CLI-based operating system, what exactly is the point of Windows now, other than, I suppose Exchange?

      Exchange Server is one of the killer points, yes. The other one is Domain Login with the attendant domain-wide security model. As a *nix booster, I must say those two continue to absolutely show up *nix to this day. Those two give more than enough of a "point".

    3. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is actually a pretty big deal. Stolen from this post by a ReactOS developer:

      why is command prompt so, command prompty i guess

      it all goes back to a terrible, terrible architectural choice they made way back in Windows NT 3.1

      Win32 consoles are implemented in user mode. god knows why simple, safe consoles are a user mode thing, while a ton of badly written GUI poo poo was violently forced down kernel mode's throat, but they probably hoped that text consoles were going to be a fad? nevermind. this alone wouldn't be an issue, in fact if anything it would make providing multiple implementations of console windows very easy, but they had to double down on the awful, and make console windows run in the user-mode part of the win32 subsystem (basesrv.dll), which runs in a hyper-privileged process, csrss.exe. how privileged?

      * the system is immediately shut down with a fatal hard error if it terminates. regular hard errors (like "put the floppy back in, idiot", "executable imports non-existing function from dll", etc.) are passed from kernel mode back to csrss.exe, which turns them into message boxes (when you use MessageBox with the MB_SERVICE_NOTIFICATION flag, you are actually raising a STATUS_SERVICE_NOTIFICATION hard error); they are even interactive (you surely remember the infamous abort/retry/ignore), as in the thread that raised them is blocked waiting for your answer. the caller can even be a kernel mode driver (see IoRaiseHardError). fatal hard errors (passing OptionShutdownSystem to NtRaiseHardError/ExRaiseHardError) on the other hand can't be sent to anyone and result in an immediate shutdown (pretty fast because only drivers are notified, user mode processes are just killed) followed by a bugcheck. so technically it's wrong to say that terminating csrss.exe causes a BSOD because a BSOD is instant, while when you kill csrss.exe you can e.g. hear the disks flushing. little known fact: before Windows XP, crashing on termination of a critical process wasn't a kernel feature; instead, the startup process (smss.exe) would wait for the termination of csrss.exe and winlogon.exe, and hit you with a hard error if it ever returned from the wait. you'll notice a flaw: nobody watches the watcher (kernel don't gaf). you could totally kill smss.exe and then csrss.exe without a BSOD. back then, the debugging APIs were implemented in user mode for some loving reason, and for an even more inexplicable reason they were a RPC API and smss.exe was the server end, so killing smss.exe would have no visible effect, except breaking debugging until a reboot
      * it has direct access to the real-mode address space (lowest 1 MB of physical address space), in fact it's mapped at virtual address 0 and everything. csrss.exe doesn't actually use this, it's a hack for calling the VGA BIOS from video drivers. the driver framework attaches to csrss.exe to get its address space (virtual address 0 is in the user mode range, and kernel processes like System have no user mode virtual memory range, so you need to attach to a user mode process for that) and then I have no idea what happens because I've never done VGA. there's a special flag to RtlCreateUserProcess (low level no-Win32 equivalent of CreateProcess, used to start winlogon.exe, csrss.exe, etc. you can tell a process has been launched by RtlCreateUserProcess instead of CreateProcess because its command line will include the full object namespace path, e.g. \??\C:\WINDOWS\System32\winlogon.exe), RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS_RESERVE_1MB, whose entire purpose is to reserve the lowest 1 MB of virtual address space in the target process so that stacks, heaps, environment, etc. will be allocated somewhere else and win32k.sys can map the real-mode address space there (how do you allocate memory at address 0? just pass (PVOID)1 as the desired address to VirtualAlloc/NtAllocateVirtualMemo

    4. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      So let me get this straight. Windows is getting the kind of terminal support *nix has had for nearly 50 years?

      No, Windows has had the kind of terminal support for years, it is just been their own implementations. The difference now is that they are now using the same particular protocol as the *nix world. In other words, they are going from the kind of terminal support to the exact terminal support.

    5. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Wait till you find out they'll actually let you resize the terminal window.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same as it's always been... full integration with the entire line of business-oriented Microsoft products (including Exchange) and support for the vital third-party software that requires Windows.

      For many years, Microsoft's business model has been to promote a Microsoft-centric universe. If you use Office, you'll get the best service with an Exchange server, which must run on Windows Server, and really needs Active Directory, which supports your Windows workstations, which integrate with Office. It's not just that Windows is a GUI-based OS. Microsoft products are a part of a whole tangled mess of dependencies, and for years we've been stuck dealing with the downside of that glorious integration.

      Every IT admin has a story about the vital business process that involved a human robot. Every day a human logs in, and runs an Excel macro to generate a spreadsheet, that he saves as a CSV file and loads into a third-party program, which generates a RTF document, that needs to be renamed to .txt and moved to a different folder for another program to find and render into a PDF, which the human has to open and read the third line on the fifth page to determine which managers need the report emailed to them. This is a GUI-based process, because the software runs on a GUI-based OS. It can't be automated, because the software doesn't support it. For decades, automation has been a "nice to have" feature, because it never fit into the Microsoft business model, so there was never a good framework to support it built into Windows.

      Sure, we had some old tricks... Batch files, DDE, COM, OLE, WSH, VBA... but they never really enjoyed full support from Microsoft. They were supported features, but not supported enough that third-party vendors would feel pressure to support any automation.

      Now, with PowerShell and the Core offering of Windows Server, there's the notion that everything should be able to be automated. Sure, we've had that idea from the very first days of Unix, and *nix has embraced the concept to maturity, but *nix still doesn't run every piece of business-critical third-party software. For those of us who are already firmly entrenched in that Microsoft-centric world, this is a much-needed good omen.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exchange Server is one of the killer points, yes. The other one is Domain Login with the attendant domain-wide security model. As a *nix booster, I must say those two continue to absolutely show up *nix to this day. Those two give more than enough of a "point".

      Both Mac OS X and RedHat Linux have answers to both domain login and domain-wide security. The Linux implementation is somewhat less robust (i.e. it's possible to escape exclusion groups, and there's no external group membership resolver like there is on Mac OS X, so there's still the 16 group limit), but it at least is a proof by existence that the claim is wrong. And you can always install the Samba implementation manually on any Linux or BSD box.

      If you want to get technical, had Windows not added the proprietary field, we're just talking a KDC implementation, as in Heimdal Kerberos, or before that, MIT Kerberos, and that's been around since Project Athena, which means early 1980's, which means over 30 years. Microsoft's implementation was 1995 or so, and it was the late 90's before they made it non-interoperable with the proprietary field, so they are predated by at least a decade.

      Kerberos was interesting, in that it abused the setgroups() and cr->ngroups to store the Kerberos key in the last two groups field, but at that point you were not really using groups anyway (since you were using remote Andrew FS or similar, and it was doing server side credentials enforcement).

      So TL;DR: they absolutely did not, and do not, "show up *nix".

    8. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Well, I think they've decided to finally be useful to developers.

    9. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Windows had a Telnet server, to be sure. But you had to be pretty damned careful as to which commands you used. We did play around with Cygwin's bash script running in a TTY on Windows 2000, but it was clunky and slow (like everything in Cygwin was, and maybe still is, I dropped it years ago). In the end it just wasn't a very good CLI-based management platform because 1. there was no good native pure CLI-based toolset to administer a system, 2. no good TTY based text editor, and 3. it was bloody Telnet, and unless you were going to throw everything in an encrypted tunnel, it simply wasn't secure enough for production servers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by mlts · · Score: 2

      SQL server is a database server, and some applications require it... but at least there are others, and one doesn't have to run their business on it. There are alternatives, from MySQL/MariaDB to Oracle, and the nice thing about Oracle is that there are no license keys to manage, so if there is a disaster, getting your RAC cluster back operable isn't dependent on licensing/activation.

      This isn't to say SQL server is bad, but if one wants to move from Windows, there are RDBMS products which are just as good available. If you like NoSQL, but still want ACID... there is always MarkLogic.

    11. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by mlts · · Score: 2

      The Telnet server required an Expect script to use... and yes, you -can- do stuff that way... but it is a relative PITA compared to ssh, Python libraries, and Ansible. As the parent said, sending unencrypted passwords through a link (yes, one -could- do tunnels, but that is another bunch of hoops) was possible... but with SSH (especially with RSA authentication), it is far, far easier.

    12. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Tons of interesting stuff in that link, totally off topic, but details about rewriting win32 kernel with full unicode support as a realtime OS for Windows CE:

      I do in fact know a little about Windows CE! from what I remember, it's a much simpler, cleaner design. its Win32 is a rewrite of a subset (for one: Unicode only, no ANSI), and the kernel is a hard realtime microkernel with some cool, unique features: for example, inter-process calls temporarily moved the calling thread to the server process, no roundtrips, no memory copies. this could only work because Windows CE had a single address space shared by all processes. this limited Windows CE to 4 GB of physical memory, but it was a necessity because it had to work on machines without a MMU. the fixed address space also limited Windows CE to 15 processes, don't know why so few (not threads though, you could create as many threads as would fit in memory, and you had 256 priority levels to choose from instead of Windows NT's meager 15)

      this was until Windows CE 5. Windows CE 6 is a much more boring kernel, with separate address spaces and drivers running in kernel mode

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by realmolo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Full integration with Active Directory, for fine-grained permissions over all aspects of the mail/calendar system.

      For example, with Exchange and AD, I can create a distribution group, and delegate "ownership" of that group to a specific user, so they can add/remove users to that group. I can set that group to "open" or "closed", meaning users can either join it/leave it without owner approval, or not.

      I can give an arbitrary user access to another users entire mailbox, or give them only permission to "send as" a different user, or distribution group.

      I can allow only certain users to send to specific addresses, meaning I can have a "My Entire Company" distribution group that only specific people can send mail to.

      And then there are similar permissions/delegation options for calendars, and Public Folders, and even Skype for Business. If you have VoIP phone systems, and compatible phones, you can even access all of your mail/calendar/Skype messages from your phone.

      I can set deletion and archive polices for each user, or a group of users. I can set mailbox size limits per user, or per group. I can create a "discovery search", meaning I can allow access to a user's mailbox, but only for mails that meet a specific search criterion.

      And of course, there is a cottage industry of add-ons for Exchange to do a million other things. Mimecast, for example, allows automatic off-site archiving of all email (with an Outlook plugin to search the mail), and automatic failover to Mimecast's servers if Exchange goes offline.

      It's just endless. Exchange has no real competition. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than anything else for corporate messaging, by a wide margin.

    14. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gosh, what did we ever do before Windows 2000? Authentication by clay tablet?

      It's the egocentric nature of MS's claims, that somehow computing couldn't be done without its products, that pisses me off the most. It denies an absolute vast amount of work done in these areas for decades before derivative technologies like AD even existed

      Just like how Redmondites are doubtless cheering the innovation of giving Windows admins what everyone else has had for decades. This isn't a moment for pride at Redmond, but the moment when if fully recognizds just how shabbily it treated people stuck trying to do automation on its amazingly incoherent platform.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re: So Let Me Get This Straight by corychristison · · Score: 2

      I don't get it either... Outlook is a pile of shit, Exchange may "work" but it certainly is also a pile of shit. Years of cruft, and more added on every year.

      I'm not a fan of Google, nor do I use their services, but they are at least based on open standards anyone can use... I don't just mean email, I mean calendars/appointments (CalDAV), contact syncronization (CardDAV), internal messaging (XMPP), etc.

      Microsoft and their need to convolute everything until it crumbles in the users hand for the sake of locking everyone in to extract more license fees is frustrating, and a huge waste of company time/money.

    16. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to get technical, had Windows not added the proprietary field, we're just talking a KDC implementation, as in Heimdal Kerberos, or before that, MIT

      _just_ ? Try setting setting up IPA sometime. That's just LDAP and Kerberos too. Have fun...

      LDAP is really easy. Well, it is for me:

      From the OpenLDAP commit logs:
      ===
      1.1.4.1 Sat Aug 8 23:05:28 1998 UTC; 17 years, 6 months ago by kurt
      CVS Tags: FreeBSD_3_3; Branch: FreeBSD
      Changed since 1.1: +0 -0 lines
      Diffs to 1.1 (colored diff)
      Import of FreeBSD LDAP 3.3 Port
      ---
      1.1 Sat Aug 8 22:43:17 1998 UTC; 17 years, 6 months ago by kurt
      Initial revision
      ---
      1.1.3.1 Sat Aug 8 22:43:17 1998 UTC; 17 years, 6 months ago by kurt
      CVS Tags: LDAP_3_3+prerelease, UMICH_LDAP_3_3, BOOLEAN_LDAP, LDAP_POSTE, LDAPworld; Branch: UMICH ; Branch point for: RAGE
      Changed since 1.1: +0 -0 lines
      Diffs to 1.1 (colored diff)
      Import of Umich LDAP 3.3
      ===

      See that 1.1.4.1? Those are my patches to get OpenLDAP working from UMich LDAP sources. It added about 40 platforms. OpenLDAP started with the UMich LDAP, added my patches, and then went on from there. Originals of the (120K of) patches are HERE:

      http://www.freebsd.org/~terry/...

      Just because something is hard for you, doesn't make it hard for the rest of us. Some of us have been doing this for nearly two decades.

    17. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by dbIII · · Score: 2

      One of the funny moments on this site was a series of posts in a range of articles by an MS fanboy that kept saying the MS stuff was superior to *nix due to the "run as" functionality. He didn't seem to know that *nix has had the entirely equivalent "su" since before the MS stuff even had usernames, he'd only heard the preaching of another fanboy about how wonderful the feature was and how MS had invented it.
      That summed up the attitude nicely.

    18. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      So essentially it took until 2009 for Microsoft to even begin to admit that RPC, a few rather crappy scripting host options and RDP were inadequate, but it took them over six more years to finally implement what is pretty much the gold standard of encrypted TTY interfaces.

      No, they have never stated that their previous technology was inadequate. They are just providing yet another option to their existing solutions. That you think that SSH is the one-and-only answer shows your biases rather than demonstrates any admissions of inadequacy by Microsoft.

      Maybe this is part of the turning over a new leaf, but I can't help but imagine that the next version of Microsoft's coursework will announce how innovative all of this...

      There is no way that they will attempt to claim that they invented SSH. Apart from being so easy to disprove (and thus ridicule), it would also go against the current Microsoft policy of working with standards.

      ...much as it went around declaring how innovative Powershell was, when all it really is is an overly complicated descendant of Bash, inelegant, overly verbose and unnecessarily convoluted.

      Once again you have let your hatred and obvious lack of knowledge get the better of you. The basis of Powershell is that it treats everything as an object and is integrated with .NET so that it has access to virtually the same class structures that low level languages have. How it that being a descendant of bash? As you say, it has a verbose naming scheme for its commands and functions. How is that being a descendant of bash? Sure it has aliases to allow common *nix commands, but it also has them to allow CMD.EXE commands too. They are simply there to provide convenient shortcuts. Apart from those helpful aides, everything about Powershell is all its own.

      I just hope all the Redmondites see the irony of MS sitting around for two decades declaring NT's superiority because, you know, Windows and all, and now essentially reinventing, badly in many cases, what the Unix ecosystem has had for decades.

      For someone who thought that the only remote access that Windows had was telnet and that Powershell was a copy of something that it is almost completely unlike, I think that you need some more education before you can lecture anyone about the shortcomings of Windows.

    19. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight by Ash-Fox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Full integration with Active Directory, for fine-grained permissions over all aspects of the mail/calendar system.

      Have more in depth permission schemes in Zimbra actually.

      For example, with Exchange and AD, I can create a distribution group, and delegate "ownership" of that group to a specific user, so they can add/remove users to that group. I can set that group to "open" or "closed", meaning users can either join it/leave it without owner approval, or not.

      Can do that in Zimbra.

      I can give an arbitrary user access to another users entire mailbox, or give them only permission to "send as" a different user, or distribution group.

      Can do that in Zimbra, the sharing function are actually a much nicer set of ACL options than what Exchange/Outlook provides.

      I can allow only certain users to send to specific addresses, meaning I can have a "My Entire Company" distribution group that only specific people can send mail to.

      Can do that in Zimbra.

      And then there are similar permissions/delegation options for calendars, and Public Folders, and even Skype for Business. If you have VoIP phone systems, and compatible phones, you can even access all of your mail/calendar/Skype messages from your phone.

      You can do this in Zimbra, however for the VoIP stuff, you'll need a 3rd party addon (it exists, because I use it). As for the Skype for Business/Lync, I don't really know, but Zimbra has a built in instant messaging solution that works too.

      I can set deletion and archive polices for each user, or a group of users. I can set mailbox size limits per user, or per group. I can create a "discovery search", meaning I can allow access to a user's mailbox, but only for mails that meet a specific search criterion.

      Can do that in Zimbra.

      And of course, there is a cottage industry of add-ons for Exchange to do a million other things. Mimecast, for example, allows automatic off-site archiving of all email (with an Outlook plugin to search the mail), and automatic failover to Mimecast's servers if Exchange goes offline.

      Plenty for Zimbra too.

      It's just endless. Exchange has no real competition.

      Where Zimbra can't beat Exchange on is complete perfect integration with Outlook. It does however beat Exchange and Outlook on their offered functionality.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  3. Re:Turd by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can only hope you can run a native version of Bash with a set of GNU or Posix versions of the toolset, and I can send Powershell to the shithole that horrible scripting language belongs.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by slacka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of us that have no choice but to manage Windows and *nix boxes, it's a pain in the ass to have to context switch between RDP and ssh'ing. This will make our job much easier. Between all the open source software, github, and stuff like this, I love the new MS. Of course our real servers will always run FreeBSD.

    1. Re:Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      SSH and docker support will get the MBA types who fear change and spending cash to consider Server 2016.

      I would rather MS innovate than to just EOL good products instead.

      SSH support will go everywhere including the MMC SNMP tools and not just powershell for remote work. FOr any organization with security in mind this will be a HUGE reason to upgrade. Sadly, since Server 2016 is already in preview 4 I doubt this will see hte light of day on that release. It will be 2018 with Server 2016 R2 before we see SSH everywhere undearneath including AD authentication.

      But I can hope it will be part of Server 2016.

    2. Re:Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by slacka · · Score: 2

      Remote shells for Windows have been available for decades. Hell I remember telnet server was included with NT net tools a lifetime ago. A lifetime before that directing command interpreter thru modem ports.... Anyone who really wanted one would already have one.

      Remote shells? Yes! But SECURE, Remote shells? They have never had that built-in. I don't think you realize what a bad idea it is to communicate with you company's servers over plain text. And VPNs aren't always an option. I can always get ssh through, but I've been on plenty of networks that block VPNs. Not to mention needing additional VPN software and hardware key fobs. Give me pure ssh any day!

    3. Re:Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remote shells? Yes! But SECURE, Remote shells? They have never had that built-in.

      Powershell's remote shell is secure, and that is built-in to Windows.

    4. Re:Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But why in the hell do you want to shell out thousands of dollars on Windows Server ($6k or so to run unlimited virtualized environments?) for something that runs perfectly fine on (free) Linux.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Pooh-Pooh all you want. This is great news! by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      It's probably an R2 feature, so right, 2018. I can't possibly see them shoe horning something as foundational as SSH in to Windows at the last minute and expecting it to be secure and with low overhead.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  5. Stuff that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is.

  6. Re: Turd by spectrum- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Powershell has some great features and ideas. And whilst it can be great to script in, it is very long winded to just type and use in an adhoc fashion. Sure there's aliases but its still a bit tedious.

    The other thing power shell needs is more social interaction and perhaps just a bit more fun. I guess it's still quite new and evolving. Bash is ancient relatively speaking.

    I'd like to see stuff like figlet, write, wall, mutt natively in powershell so it becomes more of a destination than a mere dull workhorse of productivity.

  7. Re: Turd by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to see stuff like figlet, write, wall, mutt natively in powershell so it becomes more of a destination than a mere dull workhorse of productivity.

    Be patient - they have to get the keylogger working correctly first.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. Re: Windows 10 by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    DOSBox?

    Microsoft stopped shipping MSDOS (via Windows Millennium Edition) a long time ago. If you've had 15 years to transition off DOS and Win16 applications that worked only via a compatibility mode of XP then I don't think you can blame MS for not giving your customers ample time to update.

  9. Pity there isn't a -1 ; Conspiracy Theory mod by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot needs ones. Seriously, for a community that claims to hate FUD, the OSS types sure like spreading it when it is about the "right" groups. If you actually care about what kinds of things the telemetry communicates back at various settings, the information is all out there for you. No, SSH data isn't one of them. However I am going to imagine you don't, and this is just crap you want to fling at "the bad guys" because you can.

    Also a thought for you: Your OS, by definition, has access to anything any program on the system is doing. What would stop it from looking in at any 3rd party SSH server you ran, if you think it does that?

  10. Re: Windows 10 by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

    Backwards compatibility isn't one of the important goals, and in some cases, incompatibility is the goal.

    And yet the link you supplied to support this theory states that the AARD code only affected a particular beta version of the operating system. That situation was more about targeting tests than lack of backwards compatibility.

    A lot of code that stopped working (for example in the change to Vista) was because the developers did things that were outside the published API and often specifically discouraged by the official documentation. Despite what a lot of people say, Microsoft does work hard to ensure backwards compatibility. I have been able to run programs written for Windows 3.1 on my Windows 7 system. It would probably work on the 32-bit version of Windows 10 too, but I haven't tested that.

  11. Re:cygwin by GeekBoy · · Score: 2

    And you can get a bash shell.....

    SSH into windows to get a powershell? No thanks.

  12. Another Dimension by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Pity there isn't a -1; Conspiracy Theory mod

    Modding should really be happening along more than one dimension. With a nerd crowd you could easily have multiple scoring systems side-by-side. For example, a 543 might be 5 (insightful or informative), 4(funny), 3(mainstream v. conspiracy). Someone can have an insightful comment that is a bit conspiracy theorist--like most accurate comments about spying that would have been made pre-Snowden, for example.

  13. Re: Turd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I've been wanting Windows to get full Unix emulation, and even better, built in compiler support like a Unix box. I want to be able to test and run python scripts that will run on Unix vms on my box through pycharm without having to use a remote vm environment. Right now, it's easier to use a macbook pro. You'd think some monkey in marketing would have caught on to this fact.

    Of course ntfs file permissions behave differently than Unix file permissions but I think that is reconcilable. I know there is cygwin but that's not the same, it's more effort with that, and a lot if things can't live in both worlds.

  14. Re: Turd by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've done a lot of neat stuff with powershell, for example I created a powershell script that gathered information about one system (using the Get-WmiObject Win32_SystemEnclosure to retrieve i.e. a computer's brand name, serial number, bios version, etc) and opened a TCP socket to feed that information to another system across the network that had a listening server which was also written in powershell.

    But yeah, it totally violates the KISS principle. It's hard as fuck to look up certain information about the system because the way it's stored and retrieved is almost never intuitive (for example, you literally have to generate an XML file and then parse said file in order to get some stuff.)

    It's also very hard to figure out how to do something you might not have done before, or have done very rarely, because the command names are so long that they're difficult to remember. There are shorter aliases, but they don't have any consistent naming (for example, Get-WmiObject can be shorthanded as gwmi, whereas a command like Add-PSSnapIn is shorthanded as asnp) making them also harder to remember.

    I would much rather just have bash, and do that server stuff I did with tools like netcat, which although uses a separate binary, is FAR simpler than the method I used with powershell, while also having tools like dd to be able to manipulate binary blobs, and dummy block devices like /dev/zero, /dev/random, and even the ability to directly read/write to hard disks as if they were ordinary files.

    If Microsoft did that, and had a good package manager for command line tools with the ability to add third-party repositories (like aptitude does) with options to compile from source (like portage does) I might actually consider using it for servers now and then. But because it doesn't, I only use it for servers either when an application requires it (as in, no Linux version available, but this is quite rare for applications meant for servers) or for active directory (also only occasionally needed.)

  15. Re: Turd by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've done a lot of neat stuff with powershell, for example I created a powershell script that gathered information about one system (using the Get-WmiObject Win32_SystemEnclosure to retrieve i.e. a computer's brand name, serial number, bios version, etc) and opened a TCP socket to feed that information to another system across the network that had a listening server which was also written in powershell.

    You work for Microsoft on Windows 10 then?

  16. Re: Turd by mlts · · Score: 2

    This. I'd love the ability to provision a Windows box, toss a SSH key on it and have it ready to be managed via Ansible.

    On the development side, being able to Vagrant up a Windows box as easily as I do other boxes would be nice, and make life a -lot- easier when it comes to testing. If I need to create a Windows box to make sure a certain set of Registry settings works, it would be nice to create a base box, boot it, have Vagrant provision it, and have it ready to go. Then, when I want to prove my stuff works to another developer, I point them to the repository with my Vagrantfile and provisioning scripts.

    Vagrant is a wonderful tool for testing in the UNIX environment. It (pretty much) guarantees that I will have the exact same environment for testing as the developer, and if their code works in a Vagrant box, it will work in mine. I'd love to have the same ease of use on the Windows side. The closest I can come to this is a WIM image and a directory full of MSI files.

  17. Re: Turd by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What do you mean no rhyme or reason? The basic toolset; cat, sh, mv, rm, and so forth are mnemonics. The point being to make the commands as short as possible while retaining some semblance of meaning. For me Powershell's absurdly verbose naming scheme is as good a sign as any that Microsoft has never really understood CLI work.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  18. but why ? by steveoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not sure why anyone would care ... the whole "Windows 10 experience" is such a horrific platform to try and do any work done on ... fixing the shell is a noble step indeed, but there are so many other show stoppers on that system, that its just a drop in the ocean.

    1. Re:but why ? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why? Putting all the privacy shit aside I don't see Windows 10 any different for getting work done than Windows 7. Both of which have the edge over Vista with better window handling.

      There's a lot of things to complain about on Windows 10, getting work done on it is not on that list.

  19. Fifteen mentions of Windows on the front page .. by tetraverse · · Score: 2

    Fifteen mentions of Windows on the front page. Is this how slashot is going to re-connect with the technology sector?

  20. Re: Turd by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative

    They haven't. When I first tried to use PowerShell it frustrated me so much I wrote an entire article about it. Calling PowerShell a shell is a huge stretch: it's really just a strange and verbose scripting language.

  21. You have to laugh by simpz · · Score: 2

    When Windows NT first made an appearance all the Unix people were told your obsession with terminals is so outmoded that we haven't put support into NT.

    I think the Unix guys are getting the last laugh...

  22. Re: Turd by chispito · · Score: 3, Informative

    The basic toolset; cat, sh, mv, rm, and so forth are mnemonics.

    Funny you used those examples. Three out of the four of those work out of the box in PowerShell because MS included them as aliases. You can be as sleek and incomprehensible as you would like in PS. Nobody is stopping you.

    For me Powershell's absurdly verbose naming scheme is as good a sign as any that Microsoft has never really understood CLI work.

    Again... see comment re: aliases. New-Alias [alias] [cmdlet].

    Having both the long name when you are trying to discover commands and shorter aliases for day to day work is convenient. I use PowerShell day in and day out at work, and there are lots of problems with it. The uniform naming convention is a strength, not handicap.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  23. Re:What good is SSH when there's no security? by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Hey, buddy, don't come crying to me when you come home one day and discover that Clippy has gone through your underwear and sock drawers, neatly folded and organized all the above, discarded the ones with holes in them, ordered replacements, and emailed you a recommendation for brands of non-chlorine bleach to get those nasty stains out of the crotch of your tighty-whities.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!