New Windows 10 Preview For PCs With Bash, Cross-Device Cortana Released

An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft has released a new Windows 10 preview for PCs. The preview, dubbed build 14316, comes with a range of features including support for Bash, which Microsoft had announced at its developer conference Build last week. Users interested in it can enable the feature by turning on Developer Mode (detailed instructions here), searching for "Windows Features," choosing "Turn Windows features on or off," and enable Windows Subsystem for Linux (Beta). To get Bash installed, open Command Prompt and type in "bash" (without the quotes.) Other features included in the new build include low battery notification, find my phone (ring my phone), and the ability to share map directions across devices. Additionally, the company has also released a new universal Skype app.

Comments

trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[nyet]

Only took 15 years to get tcp/ip into windows.

Makes sense it took another 15 to get it a reasonable shell.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[jfdavis668]

It still won't let me run a DOS program.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[AvitarX]

What about PowerShell?

That was pretty reasonable.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Bash isn't reasonable; it just got there first.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[squiggleslash]

Pedantic note:

No it didn't. Even if you count from Windows 1.0, and start counting from 1983 despite it not really being available to the public until 1985, that'd be 12 years until Windows 95, or 11 until Wolverine (the official Microsoft Windows for Workgroups extension.)

But in practice there wasn't really a high demand for TCP/IP until well after 1990.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[MightyMartian]

PowerShell ain't Bash. It's like Bash's insane first cousin, the one who keeps his urine in the fridge and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerShell is reasonable like walking across town to take the bus to my neighbor's house right across the street is reasonable.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[DrXym]

Microsoft used to ship something called Services for Unix which was a posix subsystem and came with a bunch of Unix tools, NFS etc. It didn't have bash iirc but it had ksh and csh. That said, Services for Unix was pretty awful. The tools were cobbled together and it was far more intrusive and destabilizing to the system - if you didn't need NFS it would be better to just install cygwin.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.

You leave Peter Parker alone!

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Junta]

For some twisted version of reasonable....

For one, it tends on being very verbose.

For another, there is a very large amount of *nix ecosystem work in utilities that Powershell hasn't caught up to. Thanks to not invented here.

It's hard to put to words, but a lot of the same syntax things that make perl frequently hard to maintain is present in Powershell.

It's awkwardly in between the simplicity of a shell language and the power of other scripting languages. For example, most sophisticated languages have syntax for object oriented usage. For powershell, you better be off to C# for that sort of power.,

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[paulej72]

Services for Uinx was nice in it allowed me to connect to NFS shares and allowed for ls in cmd sessions.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[danbob999]

PowerShell? You mean the scripting language which is useless because by default Windows can't even run unsigned scripts?
No thanks, I will stick to .cmd

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[MightyMartian]

Got there first? Huh? Bash is the latest iteration of the Bourne Shell, which has been around since the 1970s, and has had a number of offshoots. I mainly cut my teeth on ksh, but because the *nix world goes by the credo "if it ain't broke", it meant that a lot of the old /bin/sh scripts still run pretty much unmodified, and moving to Bash just meant learning a superset of that which I had been using for years.

And then came along PowerShell, which is just enough like the Bourne ecosystem to remind you of how Microsoft comes so close sometimes, but the inherent anti-*nix attitudes of its developers means it never quite gets there.

The fact is that if Microsoft really wants to make inroads into the realms dominated by Unix flavors, then it isn't going to do it with a scripted layer over .NET. There are decades worth of Bourne-variant scripts and libraries out there, and maybe, just for once, Microsoft might land on the right side of the question.

Unless of course, this Bash shell is nothing more than the latest iteration of the broken Posix subsystem, in which case, it's pretty much worthless.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[ITRambo]

Good one. You get an imaginary mod point.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Not running unsigned scripts seems like a pretty awesome precaution to me. Just sign it and deploy the certs and settings via group policy if you really have need of PS in the first place.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Windows 95, there was Trumpet Winsock that was available 1993. When the first ISP's like Demon Internet allowed USENET access, DOS 3/4 systems could install a basic TCP/IP network stack that allowed basic internet functionality (ftp, gopher, mail). Given the slow speed of dial-up modems, reading USENET involved downloading the article headers, then picking which articles and threads to download completely.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[__aaclcg7560]

What about PowerShell?

The story I heard was that PowerShell got written because Microsoft paid for new lines of code and not for refactoring old lines of code like CMD.EXE (command line). Hence, you got two command line utilities. BASH will make it three.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Burdell]

It is reasonable, if rather than using easy-to-type commands such as "ls" or "dir", you like "ListDirectoryEntriesInOrderOfName".

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you lived in Los Angeles.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[swb]

What I don't understand is why they didn't provide an updated console mode/app/window with PowerShell and why they just threw it into the same dumb console that they had been throwing cmd.exe into.

I'm also curious why they didn't borrow more heavily from Unix. There are some things in PowerShell that are really awkward to do that are trivial in a Unix shell.

I'm sure there's some valid reasons but a lot of it simply seems like not invented here syndrome. I'm really annoyed with the default console window being so brain damaged, now I have to put ConEmu on everything if I want reasonable interaction with the console window.

Why can't we have nice things?

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Darinbob]

It tends to be very verbose, but on Windows this is still considered taciturn.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Darinbob]

There was higher professional demand. However they seemed to think that Novell was good enough and helped lock customers to their platform, whereas a more open standard like IP was only going to encourage customers to go elsewhere. Microsoft isat heart a microcomputer company from the eight bit world and they are reluctant to be tainted by good ideas that originate from outside of the microcomputer world.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[fsckinhippies]

You can type ls or dir in powershell BTW

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[CrashNBrn]

Aye, I was running DOS until Windows 98. With DOS-PPP or DOS-SLIP (to dialup), plus NCSA Telnet. I don't recall what the email program was.
I think I had to use a TSR to execute DOS-SLIP.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how so many of you are crippled by an OS. It would appear that your skillset is extremely limited.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Ol Olsoc]

PowerShell ain't Bash. It's like Bash's insane first cousin, the one who keeps his urine in the fridge and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.

Hell, I was all ready to mod that insightful. I mean, yeah it's funny, but after trying out PowerShell, the only thing you are guilty of is going easy on it.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that's because the numnuts who designed Windows NT also helped design VMS, another verbose spawn()-happy competitor to Unix.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

don't get used to it. microsoft will remove the feature soon as someone makes something useful (i.e. something microsoft doesn't want)....

like a script that re-enables full end-user control over windows updates,
or allows the installation of parts of 'cumulative' (one kb containing multiple others) updates,
or prevents all methods of telemetry gathering and transmission,
or puts the search slut cortana in her place,
or prevents hijacking of default applications settings...

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[rahvin112]

It's also ironic that in their effort to get TCP/IP they couldn't write their own and had to take the BSD version and integrate it into windows. There's a BSD copyright notice in Windows to this day because of that.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Espectr0]

I have recently read a powershell book. Sure, it's verbose, but how it manages piping through commands is a lot more advanced and cleaner that what you can get in bash. Sed/awk/grep looks like a hack once you have seen what powershell can do

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[i.r.id10t]

The gnu32 utils have been around for forever, has/had bash as well as many of the textutils and fileutils

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[jedidiah]

...that's because Powershell is more of an environment for Windows C programmers, whereas bash is just a user's interface.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Antique Geekmeister]

Powershell was very unreasonable in security terms. It relied on accessing, and locally mounting, with Administrative privileges, the hidden C$ from every powershell controlled host from every client running the powershell remote commands. That share is very dangerous to permit such direct CIFS mount access with, and is very difficult to disable without blocking the CIFS ports at your local firewalls. It''s a very powerful, but extremely dangerous tool to leave active by default. But turning off the C$ share can be quite difficult in most Windows configurations. :Like activating a VNC server on every Windows installation, and putting a common password on all of them "so that the admins can access the serves", it's a terrible practice from a security standpoint.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually bought a decent one from FTP software, but it serously outperformed their in-house product and got set aside for political reasons. I know several of the FTP Software staff from the 1980's who did pretty well out of the deals. James B. Van Bokkolen, nicknamed JBVB, took his profits went off to build NetInterceptor, the best logging tool in the buisiness, a popular tool for 3 letter agencies with it's built-in tools for doing man-in-the-middle recording of multiple simultaneous SSL and SSH sessions, and PhoneSweep, the best wardialer in the business and a favorite of phone spammers worldwide.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[cbhacking]

C# programmers, more obviously. Powershell is basically the runtime for .NETscript, which happens to also be usable as an interactive shell.

I actually quite like using it interactively, provided I also get Win10's upgraded console host (nothing can justify the shit-pile that is the legacy console host). The commands *can* be verbose, but tab completion handles that pretty well. You can also shorten parameters to the minimum length necessary to avoid ambiguity, which often amounts to single-letters a la *nix commands. The ability to invoke arbitrary .NET classes and functions can make what would otherwise be a moderate-length script a single line that can by typed interactively, too.

With that said, I also like using Bash on Windows. I've been doing so since long before this "Windows Subsystem for Linux" announcement, but that's another post!

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[cbhacking]

Win10 *DOES* have an upgraded terminal emulator. It's still called conhost.exe ("Console Host"), but it is wayyyyyy better than the legacy one. Horizontal resize (with text reflow), line selection instead of block selection, copy-and-paste that doesn't suck, better keyboard shortcuts, and so on. It's a huge improvement. It doesn't support a tabbed interface (yet... they're still adding stuff to Win10 though) but it's a night-and-day difference nonetheless, and a decent alternative to the standard Linux console programs.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[EdgeCreeper]

You can run unsigned scripts by default, they just cannot be remote scripts (such as on a shared drive) or a file that a browser has marked as downloaded from the internet (via NTFS file stream).

Although using something like SCCM 2012 I could not run even signed scripts in it because SCCM put spaces at the end of the script when it saved, rendering the signature invalid. Hope that bug is fixed now.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[dbIII]

Hummingbird had a far better product for MS Windows many years earlier and it was still available when "Services for Unix" came out. It wasn't just X it was NFS as well. It was not cheap but it actually worked (so long as you had your screen in 8 bit mode using X but that was the only bit that cared).

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you get all happy about Powershell try invoking it via an SSH connection. Sure, there might be some third party utility to serve as a proxy between SSH and Powershell but how much bloat are you willing to accept as sane and reasonable?

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

bash, sh, tcsh, ksh, zsh, ccsh, fish, esh, posh, push, sash, scsh, smrsh, emacsshell and so on and so on

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, but when does it get Systemd?

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

What about PowerShell?

That was pretty reasonable.

Well, it doesn't look quite reasonable when microsoft is taking all this effort just to provide a command line interface for their OS.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[danbob999]

no matter what the exact conditions are, it's a limitation not present in bash or cmd.exe

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Example? I generally find the reverse to be true, unless you dont understand object-oriented programming.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Not agreeing with some of the design choices != being crippled by an OS.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Junta]

Made even more hilarious because a cmd script can disable the signing policy. I have seen quite a few powershell scripts bundled with a cmd script to wrangle the signing policy before launching the powershell script.

In otherwords, pretty useless in the face of an adversary, but a pain for legitimate use.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Junta]

It's security theater. Any context where you can execute a powershell script, you can execute a cmd script to disable the signing policy. Malicious software that for whatever reason wants to run in powershell (there's much better vectors to run), need only preface their script with a command to disable the signing policy first.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Junta]

This is strictly true, but it also adds complexity and requires understanding beyond bash and such. For example, the output of a command may offer different stuff through pipe than you see. You have to pipe into a command to dump *all* of the data before you can think of what you can access. There's fancy polymorphic behavior in play that makes it not 'what you see is what you get'. For a software developer sort of person, the power afforded by this model is appreciated. Those same developers could however use a better language like C#, or python, or perl, etc, that provide for capabilities lacking in powershell. For a lot of admins, they don't understand software development enough and just get frustrated. bash/sed/awk/cut to them work in a way that maps directly to what they see. Yes they are limited, but they don't care. This is also a pain to a developer making a CLI wanting to make a change for cosmetic reasons, but cannot, but that's life. The biggest danger is that scripts written along this philosophy tend to be lest robust (e.g. using cut to get values, but some data has a space in it unexpectedly), so I could see the argument that someone doing automation needs to grow up into a different environment, but I just don't think powershell is the ideal I'd strive for in that scenario.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what point you think you've made.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Retron]

The Redstone builds of Windows 10 (14295 onwards) have added ANSI emulation too - only 30-odd years after DOS brought us ansi.sys.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[tlhIngan]

The Redstone builds of Windows 10 (14295 onwards) have added ANSI emulation too - only 30-odd years after DOS brought us ansi.sys.

That actually was the precursor to the whole Linux subsystem being brought over - otherwise things that use ncurses or terminfo would break horribly since the old conhost.exe didn't support it. Native Win32 console applications could control the cursor and get mouse events, but not Linux command line applications, at least not without some shim Microsoft writes to replace ncurses and terminfo.

So it was easier to add ANSI support to conhost than to write a bunch of Linux libraries (and more compatible).

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes sense it took another 15 to get it a reasonable shell.

Are you sure it is reasonable?

Recently I used the new SSH service on Win Server 2012. Actually I was happy to hear that SSH was coming to Windows. It took long enough. What a most God awful service. I thought I was back in 1970. You can't even backspace when you make a typo. No tab functions no functions at all except typing. Sure you get logged in and you do get a shell prompt and that's it. So since your SSH isn't a modern version of SSH I have to ask how close to "real" bash is your bash going to be? I'm willing to bet not even close.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerShell ain't Bash. It's like Bash's insane first cousin, the one who keeps his urine in the fridge and has a name for all the spiders in his attic.

This is by far the best comparison of Powershell and Bash I have ever heard.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10

[Coren22]

Sure, there might be some third party utility to serve as a proxy between SSH and Powershell but how much bloat are you willing to accept as sane and reasonable?

You mean like the third party OpenSSH for Linux? Calling it bloat is kind of hilarious when that is how Linux does things. You have programs which are generated by different teams to do different jobs. Windows does things differently from Linux. In Windows, to use remote Powershell through a secure channel, you use the WinRM service, which can allow you to run scripts against other servers over the internet or intranet.

so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a great move, congrats to MS for putting in native bash functionality. bye bye putty, cygwin, etc

Re:so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 10 is still infested with spyware though.

Re:so awesome

[butchersong]

This makes me wonder what Windows could be say 10 years from now... Windows 10 BSD with GNU userland?

Re: so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

just like your Android phone/tablet

Re: so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I have neither, you have a point?

Re: so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no. My Android phone runs a custom AOSP based ROM without any Google crap.

So where's the Windows open source project without spyware?

Re: so awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic: x does bad thing so it's ok if y does bad thing too

Re:so awesome

[Maritz]

Don't worry, you have your tinfoil hat to protect you.

Completely disable Cortana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they made it possible to completely disable Cortana yet? As in no service hiding in the background that gets reinstalled if you shut it down?

Typical Microsoft

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Users interested in it can enable the feature by turning on Developer Mode (Settings - Update - Security - For developers)

Let me get this straight: to enable Developer Mode, you need to go into settings (okay), update (wait, what?), security (why?), for developers (could be named a bit better IMHO).

No wonder I always feel lost when I use Microsoft products. They can't even make a proper navigation tree.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[rayd75]

No wonder I always feel lost when I use Microsoft products. They can't even make a proper navigation tree.

If they didn't put the options in a different place and a layer deeper with each release, you wouldn't feel like you got any value when you're finally forced to upgrade.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

As apposed to Androids completely intuitive:

Settings->About Device->Click on the build number 10 times->Go back to Settings->Click the now visible Developer Options->Enable Developer Options

Re:Typical Microsoft

[setantae]

No it doesn't, at least on my device.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Never used Android, don't plan on using it, don't want to use it.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[BorgAssimilator]

Yup. In Outlook, in order to export data, you first go to "Open" then "Import".

Gotta love window navigation!

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Darinbob]

They're worried that a mere customer might be able to type "bash" by accident and end up enlightened. Microsoft's core bread and butter comes from unenlightened customers.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's main UX paradigm appears to be the game of 'hide and seek', possibly with the intention of making boring office work more fun.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

it is: Settings -> Update & security -> For developers. So a little bit better in reality :)

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it everyday all day and my device is almost always locked. It DOES NOT turn off when the screen locks. The only time it turns off is if no devices are connected to it for a few minutes (assumes it is no longer required).

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Enokcc]

Users interested in it can enable the feature by turning on Developer Mode (Settings - Update - Security - For developers)

Let me get this straight: to enable Developer Mode, you need to go into settings (okay), update (wait, what?), security (why?), for developers (could be named a bit better IMHO).

No wonder I always feel lost when I use Microsoft products. They can't even make a proper navigation tree.

Or you press the windows key on start writing "For devel.." and there you are.

Same with Office 2016, no longer need to browse the menus, just type what you want. I really like the direction Microsoft is going with Bash and all.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. Every OS in existance has oddball configuration hurdles, incuding and especially GNU/Linux. You just singled out Microsoft because you're a fucking troll.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[thegarbz]

Android is much better for that. To find developer mode you just open up Settings > About > Click on the phone version number 7 times, and magic happens. Suddenly you get an exposed hidden menu.

But Linux is best of all. You get all the developer options whether you want them or not, buried in a list of 100 other settings.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[PingSpike]

If it makes you feel any better, they'll probably change it all around again tomorrow. It won't actually be improved but you can rest assured it will take more clicks to get their than the last version.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I've never used GNU/Linux either, I singled out Microsoft because that's the only one I know with such oddball menu tree choices.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Coren22]

Where would you put the setting to enable developer mode updates?

At the root of it, this is an update, you have to update Windows from Windows Update to enable it.

Re:Typical Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not where it is

Settings -> Update & Security -> For Developers

Windows Subsystem for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be Linux Subsystem for Windows?

Re:Windows Subsystem for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah... the problem with English. It's a subsystem of Windows for the Linux ABI. It's a Linux-ABI subsystem for the Windows NT kernel. ..

Although.. you're right. If they followed the traditional naming of subsystems, it should actually be called "Linux Environment Subsystem", or possibly "Linux Environment Subsystem for Windows NT"

(Technically, it's a NT Subsystem, not a Windows subsystem. Win32, aka, Win32 Environment Subsystem, is a subsystem on top of the NT Kernel; but few people notice the difference as for a long time now, it's been the only subsystem anyone's used. Still, this is why NTFS has features that make this easier than it would have otherwise been - NTFS has supported unix-style attributes (owner, group etc) and case sensitive file names, all to allow the POSIX Environment subsystem to function.)

There are a handful of "NT Native " applications that run without a subsystem directly against the (basically undocumented) NT Kernel API - e.g., AUTOCHK which checks disks at boot, the security 'subsystem', and environmental subsystems themselves.

Oh and, yes, NTFS IS case sensitive, and always has been. However, the Win32 API for accessing files is NOT, and that's what virtually everyone uses. Because this new subsystem is, as far as I can tell, a subsystem, it would be working directly against NTFS, not Win32, and thus can use NTFS's case-sensitive nature, if the designers chose to go that way. (Same with path length limits -- NTFS supports vastly longer than 256 characters, but Win32 is the limiting factor.)

Re:Windows Subsystem for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tested - in bash, you can make two files that differ only by case, and they will show up properly in explorer. The problems start if you try to access them from a win32 program - those APIs are not case sensitive, so you can only open one of them. (The asciibetically first one, perhaps?)

Re:Windows Subsystem for Linux?

[Guspaz]

"Windows Services for UNIX" was introduced 17 years ago, so "Windows Subsystem for Linux" is at least consistent with their prior naming for such things.

Re:Windows Subsystem for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you think about it, it's really GNU/Linux with the kernel swapped, so the proper name should be GNU/Windows. I wonder why we haven't heard from RMS yet.

clippy

[Joe_Dragon]

It seems like you are ssh to a server should I save the password for you?

Re:clippy

[vux984]

That was windows 98 era stupid. We have progressed since then.

It seems like you are trying to ssh to a server, should I share the password with everyone in your contacts?

Yes always / Yes right now / Cancel connection

However if you go into Settings -> Advanced -> Personalization -> Sharing -> Extra Settings -> SSH Options there is a check box that says "Disable SSH Passwords" that will add a "No" box to the other dialog box.

There is also a group policy that makes No the default and turns off the prompt.

RTFM n00b!

Re:clippy

[Anonymous Coward]

Subversion still does this and they have repeatedly publicly stated they have *zero* intention of turning this off by default.

Yet another reason to switch to git!

Re:clippy

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like you are trying to mount a network device. Would you like me to AutoPlay any executable scripts in the root directory?

Oh, who am I kidding. The default would be to run them, not to ask.

Bash?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't develop a script in Bash on Windows, sounds like a terrible idea. For quite a few tasks, PowerShell is far superior (OOP, etc). Just like I wouldn't develop a complex script in Bash on Linux, I'd use Python instead. Yes, PowerShell has its problems, but far fewer issues than Bash.

I find that Bash is really only useful for simple invocation of other binaries, coupled with very basic logic. Anything more complex turns a Bash script into a nightmare.

Re:Bash?

[chipschap]

I have to disagree. It takes some time and effort to get comfortable with Bash, but once you do it's really powerful and logical. I used to script most things in Perl or Python but found that for a lot of uses, Bash was more than adequate once I put in the effort.

Just like C, Perl, Python, or anything, Bash scripts can be indeed a nightmare if poorly coded. But properly coded Bash scripts are easy to work with.

Re:Bash?

[MightyMartian]

I've developed plenty of sophisticated scripts in Bash. Just because you haven't learned Bash doesn't mean it isn't useful, it just means you lack experience and knowledge.

For some of us, having a common scripting language on Windows and *nix, one which has decades worth of scripts behind, is more valuable than OOP concepts. For chrissakes, even on a fairly well-speced system, the amount of time Powershell takes to start is astonishing, whereas I have Linux installs on crappy Cyrix processors with 256mb of RAM where Bash pops up right away.

Re:Bash?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. It takes some time and effort to get comfortable with Bash, but once you do it's really powerful and logical. I used to script most things in Perl or Python but found that for a lot of uses, Bash was more than adequate once I put in the effort.

Just like C, Perl, Python, or anything, Bash scripts can be indeed a nightmare if poorly coded. But properly coded Bash scripts are easy to work with.

Whoa there. You're telling me that I have to learn something? I'm not ready for that kind of commitment.

Re:Bash?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious that you accuse others of lacking "experience and knowledge" when you yourself do not appear to know when to use the right tool for the job!

Bash isn't even a "common scripting language" among similar UNIX or UNIX-like platforms, due to how the commands invoked by such shell scripts often differ. This is true even when you're using common commands like sed. It's much too easy to use sed arguments that are accepted by GNU sed, but aren't by OS X's sed.

Fuck, sometimes a bash shell script written for Debian-derived distros won't work on Fedora-derived distros, even when both are using the Linux kernel and the GNU commands!

If bash isn't a "common scripting language" among modern, widely-used UNIX- or UNIX-like platforms, or even just among modern versions of the major Linux distros, how the hell do you expect it to be any better when Windows is involved?! Windows is obviously a very different environment, even if attempts are made to reduce these differences.

Face it, a bash script is nearly always the wrong choice. Unless it's a simple script running one or two commands and you'll never redistribute this script and nobody else will ever have to maintain it, you're better off avoiding bash completely.

If your script involves string manipulation, bash is the wrong choice. If your script involves math of any sort, bash is very much the wrong choice. If your script involves even a single conditional or a single loop, bash is the wrong choice.

Just use Python. It'll let you accomplish the same tasks, likely in a fraction of the time, and with a much better result. Plus your script will likely be more portable, too, even to Windows!

Bash is a relic from a pre-Python world. It's time to move away from bash.

Re:Bash?

[NotAPK]

Could be trolling, but please help me understand: "PowerShell is far superior (OOP, etc)" I can't think of any cases where OOP would be beneficial for a scripting language. Can anyone provide a good example?

Re:Bash?

[alantus]

Just use Python. It'll let you accomplish the same tasks, likely in a fraction of the time, and with a much better result. Plus your script will likely be more portable, too, even to Windows!

Sure, as long as you have the same version of Python installed, your script might be portable. I can't remember when was the last time I had to check $BASH_VERSION.

Bash is a relic from a pre-Python world. It's time to move away from bash.

How about using the right tool for each job?
Use Bash for simple tasks that involve running programs, piping their output, checking their exit code, etc.
Use Perl for text manipulation, regular expressions, complex data structures, complex logic, one-liners, etc.
Use Python for your code to be readable by an 8 year old.

Re:Bash?

[tnk1]

Depends on what you consider a "script", I suppose. You can write pretty complicated stuff in things that are called "scripting languages" like perl and there is some (broken) OO in perl5. Ruby is basically a scripting language and OO is pretty much built-in so that everything is an object.

Now, if you mean a minimalist scripting language like bash, then yeah, probably little need for OO since constructing a whole object to merely send myself an listing of my mail queue at 2am every night via cron is probably overkill.

Of course, I have worked for some companies that fell absolutely in love with absurdly long shell scripts, so perhaps it enables those sorts of goofballs who really want to cling to the 1970s.

Re:Bash?

[KGIII]

*sighs* The world's changing and the dinosaurs need to go extinct on their own, lest they come hunting us.

Yes, yes I have read all the comments down to here. Funny, I never knew bash was so terrible. Does that mean I'm gonna have to change my evil ways or am I still allowed to use it? How about my own custom alias file, is that a relic of bygone years or can I keep it? 'Cause I really don't want to learn Python yet. No, I do not. I sort of plan on learning it - and even got some materials to do so. But I'd like to do it on my own terms and not have to give up the old ways quite so quickly.

Yes, yes I do have a terminal (terminator) window open on boot. Hell, even when I use(d) Windows, I like a command prompt window open.

Oddly, it's because I type pretty quickly and don't need to move my hands to the mouse. I just use the keyboard for a lot of things - including much of my web navigation. Maybe that's why I just can't get into the tablet format? I keep trying but no luck so far. Ah well... I'm going to go lay and egg somewhere creative and then climb into a tar pit.

Re: Bash?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would avoid learning Python for as long as you can, Python fan boys love it but the rest of us this think it's shit. I'd rather code in PHP than Python, that's how bad it is.

Re:Bash?

[jedidiah]

No. The problem with bash is not bash itself but the fact that it takes most of it's features from the underlying userland and THAT varies from Unix to Unix.

Your fixation with Python is itself an ancient relic that doesn't exactly match the year you're trying to post to.

Clippy Says:

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's easier when you send passwords as clear text. Should I enable this feature? (Yes/No)"

What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who wants bash can simply get it already from Mingw or Cygwin. And bash isn't much use by itself since normally people who need bash want stuff like ls, find, grep, vi, git, gcc etc. to go with it.

Re:What's the point?

[mingot]

It runs them. Not recompiled binaries, but actual ELF binaries.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually prefer to compile my binaries with GCC rather than run through an emulation layer.

That's the whole purpose of open source. You can actually make shit work on other platforms. MS seems to want to add the potential for vendor lock in to Linux.

My my, Captcha: Turgidly

Re:What's the point?

[ChunderDownunder]

The point is that MS are touting bash support as a milestone for their compatibility layer.

What is being downloaded is a minimal amd64 Ubuntu image. I don't know the specific technical details but it's like a chroot mounted at c:/users/ChunderDownunder/Linux.

So its not just bash, pick any package from your local Ubuntu mirror - including the list of commands you mentioned.

command line only, a UI isn't a goal, initially.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not an emulation layer like WINE or Cygwin. This is an NT subsystem (remember the microkernel craze of the late 80's?). ELF binaries are now *NATIVE* NT binaries.

Re:What's the point?

[cbhacking]

That's an interesting difference from the old Subsystem for Unix Applications (SUA, formerly known as Service For Unix or SFU). SUA/SFU were source compatible with many (though by no means all) user-mode Linux programs, but the actual binaries had to be compiled as PE format (targeting the POSIX subsystem, though, not the Win32 subsystem the way normal Windows programs and Cygwin binaries do). They didn't have .EXE extensions (unless you wanted them to) and followed Unix-like loading behavior, but they were still PE binaries, not ELF.

Not so fast!

[halivar]

There are a number of things Cygwin does that don't quite work on Windows 10 + Bash, such as setting up GCC and C libraries and environment variables for building OSS projects out of the box. But this is a good start.

Re:Not so fast!

[Faw]

From what I read it actually does all that. You can 'apt-get install '. At least that what I understood from reading this. I think its kind of cool, like a "reverse WINE".

Re:Not so fast!

[mukinrestak]

No tmux or screen yet is a bummer, but that's still damned interesting.

Noooooooope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they let me ACTUALLY AND PERMENANTLY disable all the useless spyare shit they added to 10. I'm still not running it.

Windows 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that Spyware Malware ridden operating system that Microsoft keeps force feeding everyone?

No thanks, I think I'll stick with linux and bash.

Re:Windows 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you mentioned that further up.

Re:trumpet winsock:win95:cygwin bash:win10 FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerShell is reasonable like walking across town to take the bus to get the map to get to my neighbor's house right across the street is reasonable.

random syntax required...

Little slow today

[butchersong]

Linux binary compatibility? So wait, this means I should be able to take a random simple binary without a lot of dependencies, scp it (yay) to my Windows box and run it?

Re:Little slow today

[KGIII]

Yup. You should even have aptitude on your Windows box. You can apt-get install foo and run with it. I don't know how far they've come and I'm not going to go install Windows to find out but it's kind of amazing, isn't it? If I understand, it's getting the Ubuntu mini and you get that for starters. I almost want to install Windows in a VM to check it out but I'm afraid the recursion would collapse the universe or rip a whole in the time/space continuum.

I'm thinking, install Windows in a VM... Install Wine... Use Wine in Windows to run Windows apps. We could go squirrels all the way down if we install VirtualBox. Hell, I can get VMWare installed from the terminal without a problem. I won't even have to much about with VirtualBox though I'm not sure my VMWare license allows that sort of thing.

On a more serious note, it does sound interesting. As we move closer to the reality of SotC desktops, we move closer towards the world I envisioned years ago. Where it matters naught the OS but that you've space, RAM, and CPU cycles. Unfortunately, by the time it gets here, it will be nothing but fart apps and bots talking to each other.

What's wrong with Cygwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest question here: What's the purported advantage of using this versus Cygwin?

Re:What's wrong with Cygwin

[Darinbob]

Cygwin is slow. Maybe not for a few commands here and there but you can see noticeable slow downs when running some scripts or makefiles or things like that. This is because Cygwin is forcing full Unix compatibility, the point is not to have a Unix look-alike but to allow compiling and running code written for Unix.

But that's inherently slow on Windows where a process sticks around long term rather than the one-process-per-command fork/exec style of Unix. So a Windows native bash would probably not be just put a wrapper around the original bash source code but instead build on top of win32 and other dlls.

Cygwin also uses forward slash for directory separators which might be just a bit too much for Microsoft to use.

Re:What's wrong with Cygwin

[Anonymous Coward]

So a Windows native bash would probably not be just put a wrapper around the original bash source code but instead build on top of win32 and other dlls.

not win32 but a separate subsystem built on NT an equals to win32 : http://scilnet.fortlewis.edu/tech/NT-Server/architecture.htm

It's 2016, So: Long File Paths ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Windows File Explorer now handle files it itself creates ?

How can any of their developers be proud of what they have made with all the decades-old bugs they just ignore ?

Re:It's 2016, So: Long File Paths ?

[Darinbob]

Vodka helps.

It's not just Bash...

[ndykman]

It's pretty much a port of the console based user space from Ubuntu, which will make a lot of developers happy (more options good). But, given how it works, you can't use bash to script windows commands (like you could in Cygwin/MSYS2). Nor can you expect to run some unix commands from the console either. On the other hand, the whole apt toolkit is at your hands, so you can install a ton of software and not wait for a Cygwin port.

I'm sure I'll get labeled as a shill (I'm not, it'd be nice, I could use the extra cash), but this is a major boost to Windows 10 as a developer OS. I get all the Windows tools I like and all the Linux bits I'm likely to want. And, yes, they are developing the .Net ecosystem into a really nice cross-platform environment for a lot of platforms.

Don't get me wrong, this is a squeeze on desktop Linux. There's likely no way they'll have the subsystem able to host X (or Wayland or Mir), it's not worth the effort. And there's no plans to port any of the Universal Windows Platform GUI stuff to Linux (again, no pay off).

Re: It's not just Bash...

[Anonymous Coward]

X Servers already exist for Windows. I don't think Microsoft will provide one, but it would be pretty cool if you can use the ones that already exist.

Re:It's not just Bash...

[ChunderDownunder]

There's likely no way they'll have the subsystem able to host X (or Wayland or Mir), it's not worth the effort.

No need. The common UI toolkits for Linux (Qt, GTK+) work on Windows already.

apt-get install gimp
gimp

GIMP calls through to GTK+, which detects it's running on Windows and specifies a Win32 backend. Thanks to dynamic linking, the original GIMP binary for Linux doesn't need to know or care.

Re:It's not just Bash...

[DoofusOfDeath]

but this is a major boost to Windows 10 as a developer OS.

Perhaps temporarily. We have no reason to doubt that Microsoft has repented of its Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy.

Re:It's not just Bash...

[DoofusOfDeath]

but this is a major boost to Windows 10 as a developer OS.

Perhaps temporarily. We have no reason to doubt that Microsoft has repented of its Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy.

Or to say it differently: the leaders of Microsoft are bad people. They are as a group selfish, anti-social, and willing to break the law and steel from the public for their own personal gain. They are not worthy of any trust or benefit of doubt.

Re:It's not just Bash...

[slimjim8094]

Actually it's apparently not a port. You could copy a regular ELF binary from your Linux system and it would run just fine. The kernel is actually implementing the Linux syscalls, more or less. IIUC it's a peer to Windows in the NT kernel.

This isn't the first time people have done this. The old Services for Unix implemented a lot of the primitives like fork() but still required recompilation. People bolted on an ELF loader and dynamic linker to that and were able to get stuff working.

Here's a thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about SOMEBODY roll-out an OS and a web browser and an e-mail client etc that never access the net without a user requesting it, and then ONLY touching the sites the user selected. This whole "personal computer" revolution arose on the promise that you could own your own hardware, own your own software, and be the person in control of what the software did with the hardware, while you had complete control of your data. In the Pre-PC era, you leased your stuff; you did not own or control the hardware or the software and the people you leased it from effectively had custody of your data.

This secretly phoning home and sending info or guessing what the user might want and pre-loading it garbage is a foul, privacy-robbing, obnoxious, bandwidth-stealing, data transfer limit robbing, deceitful security risk.

A firewall is not the ideal solution - the vendors need to stop all this evil stuff.

It's not just Win10, though Win10 is the worst. Mozilla is doing a bunch of garbage in Firefox. Just install a copy on an isolated machine and tell Firefox not to use all the pre-configured search engines, not to auto-update, etc and then run Wireshark on it and plug it into an isolated LAN. Firefox will immediately start hammering away on dozens of sites including the search engines you have specifically told it not to use, the Mozilla update site you told it not to use, etc. It pretends to respect your choices for privacy and security, and then blatantly violates them.

I don't get what's up with the developers at Mozilla. They used to actually block popups when you check the popup blocking option, but they seem to no longer honor that option either.

They Did? -- "Windows PowerShell ISE"

[CrashNBrn]

Windows PowerShell Integrated Scripting Environment (ISE):
---> C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell_ise.exe

Or you can launch PowerShell via the console:
---> C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe

Will it restore my "start" button?

[Steve1952]

Seriously -- due to some bug, my "start" button disappeared from Windows 10 after a few months use. Looking online, I see this is a common problem, and none of the suggested fixes worked. The only alternative was to "nuke" my Windows installation or install Classic Shell. Now using Classic Shell...

Re:Will it restore my "start" button?

[Anonymous Coward]

"interesting" problem you face there. What type of "machine" are you running into this "on"?

Re:Will it restore my "start" button?

[MightyMartian]

This has happened on several of our Win10 pro machines, and the solutions found online don't work. We didn't have to nuke the installs, but it did mean deleting roaming profiles and the local copy. We are now backing profiles again after a few years of not doing it, but there are definite issues with Win10's start menu and none of the fixes work.

And don't get me started on Edge. Needless to say within a few weeks we had a GPO rolled out that made Firefox or Chrome the default browser.

Re:Will it restore my "start" button?

[sr180]

Even better was that if you had more than 512 entries in your start menu (which isnt hard, because that includes folders, readme's, uninstalls, utils, etc etc) most of your applications would not be displayed in your start menu.
So you'd have a start menu, it would just be useless.

Re:Will it restore my "start" button?

[omnichad]

You more likely could have rebuilt the windows system image in Powershell using some obscure dism command. I've done it once or twice for people, but I can't even begin to remember how to Google the solution.

Embrace and extend nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is no longer bashing bash. All well and good, except that the next thing they're going to do is implement bash poorly to such an extent that the value of having it in windows is totally lost (unless you're blissfully unaware of all this because you've been happily using cygwin this whole time). Nothing terribly new about any of this, since Apple embraced BSD Unix a decade ago and quickly turned it into something unrecognizable, bloated, insecure, and bug-ridden. So it goes.

Re:Embrace and extend nightmare

[MightyMartian]

It looks like a glorified VM instance. There's no real integration. There's no suggestion it will end up on the server editions, and no suggestion it will be in any way integrated into Windows in a way that anyone could use as an alternative to PowerShell or CMD.EXE. Yes, I suppose for cross platform developers it might take one step out of testing some code on the other operating system, but really it sounds only slightly less of a pain that simple running an Ubuntu install virtualized in Windows.

If this is the definition of "running Bash under windows", then we've been able to do that for years.

Crosscompilations

[Anonymous Coward]

But can you cross-compile a Windows version of an OSS package on this Linux environment on Windows?

Microsoft Linux

[Kaenneth]

I've said many times, Linux can't 'beat' MS, because MS can always do MS Linux.

Re:Microsoft Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Its the opposite. MS can't beat Linux because Linux can survive without $$$. MS can't. EEE doesn't work on Linux. MS will extinguish itself if it drove the $$$ down.

If MS open sourced all their software to try to beat Linux. The first that would happen is someone will fork MS programs remove all the crud and bs and release a superior version .. or at the very least the best bits of MS will be ripped out and integrated into Linux proper. MS Linux would be a win for Linux because it would bring more programs to Linux and MS can't close off Linux to add their bs to it.

Re:Microsoft Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

But now we are seeing Microsoft doing with Linux the same that WINE did to Windows. This Windows 10 beta has a Linux subsystem which maps Linux kernel calls into NT kernel calls. Some things don't work but what they're doing is this:

1) controlling what works and doesn't work because it can't run better than on Windows
2) tracking who turns on the Linux subsystem for developers
3) track how they are using it and what software is being run
4) eliminates the need to use other virtual machine vendors software( Microsoft users far often use Microsoft products over 3rd party )
5) eliminates the need to use of unknown different Linux distro's by providing the Microsoft Windows for Linux version. in the VM, you control what clients you run.
6) marketing, marketing, marketing, marketing

This is more of a threat to Linux than anything they've done previously if their customers fall for it and start using it instead of using real Linux distros.

Re:Microsoft Linux

[Guspaz]

Windows only makes up 10% of Microsoft's revenue, and that's dropping. They literally gave away Windows 10 for free. They can survive just fine without any OS revenue.

blah blah bash blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more to Unix than the shell. A lot more. Did these people even know that shells other than bash exist?

Seriously, the shell is a pretty minor part of the unix command line environment.

If anything they should be touting that they've implemented the Linux ABI on top of windows, not "comes with BASH!"

Re: No, sh/ksh/bash are just shitty languages.

[Anonymous Coward]

Python is shit, I'll only ever code in assembly!

Nobody cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cygwin has a lot more than just bash.

Also, can you ssh into Windows without installing a third party ssh package?

Re:Nobody cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, only Microsoft and its partners have remote access to your machines.

Re:Nobody cares.

[Guspaz]

Windows runs a lot more than just bash too, since this isn't a port of bash, but an entire Linux kernel compatibility layer. It's basically reverse WINE.

If you want to SSH into Windows after installing WSL, you type the same thing you would on your Linux box: "sudo apt-get install openssh-server"

Cromulent, but when will they shelve MOOXML?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, Microsoft, rid the world of your awful proprietary MOOXML and make Open Document Format the default instead.

Re:No, sh/ksh/bash are just shitty languages.

[guruevi]

I've heard the argument and I somewhat agree with it yet I've yet to see anyone replace bash with Python as their 'default' terminal. It's just 'simpler' to learn the shitty language to do what it is built to do than look up and implement the correct order into a function call every time I want to do something.

Because this:
from os import listdir
from os.path import isfile, join
onlyfiles = [f for f in listdir(mypath) if isfile(join(mypath, f))]

May be not as shitty but still not as simple as this:
ls -l

More like 4 years

[cbhacking]

If you're counting from 1995, when Cygwin was first released, it took Microsoft only 4 years to get native Unix shells on Windows (and that's counting from when Microsoft made them available itself, not from when a third party offered them on top of the NT kernel's POSIX subsystem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For many years, Windows (NT family only) had a POSIX-compatible subsystem built into it. Like the Win32 subsystem, this "Subsystem for Unix Applications" (SUA) took POSIX system calls and translated them into NT native syscalls (the NT kernel does not recognize either Win32 or POSIX syscalls, but rather implements its own calls that are a superset of both in functionality; Win32's CreateProcess cannot properly implement POSIX's fork, but NtCreateProcess supports both). SUA also provided a Unix-like filesystem (with case sensitivity, Unix file permissions including stuff like setuid/setgid, working /proc and /dev, and so on).

Microsoft provided a bare-bones set of tools and libraries for SUA, called Interix. As of Windows 7 (Interix 6.7), this included two Unix shells, C shell and Korn shell, which both suck compared to Bash but were sufficient to bootstrap the system. Interix also included a working GCC build toolchain. From this minimal start, you could install additional packages (NetBSD, Debian, and I believe Gentoo all supported building and managing their packages for Interix, plus there was an Interix-specific package repository that Microsoft funded). There were thousands of such packages available, from Bash to OpenSSH (client and server) to Apache httpd to Git to... you get the idea. X11 client libraries, plus a Win32 X11 server (typically Xming), meant you could even run graphical software.

Microsoft deprecated SUA and stopped all development on Interix with Win8.0; in Win8.1 and Win10 (until now?) the subsystem itself is unavailable. I'm really curious to see if they built this new "Subsystem for Linux" on top of the old POSIX subsystem, or did something else (and if the latter... what?)

Re: More like 4 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Interixting

Standard Terminology Please

[jrumney]

Instead of just calling it a "Preview", will someone at Microsoft please clarify whether Windows 10 is an Alpha or Beta test product?

Re:Standard Terminology Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 10 itself is supposedly released/stable. You can opt into windows insider if you want features earlier - there are different "rings" you can join depending on how cutting/bleeding edge you want to be: Fast (as soon as the internal MS users have OKed a feature), slow (after it's been in fast a little bit without too many issues), and release preview (get patches about to be pushed to the non-insider version a bit earlier).

Of course, just how stable/ready the non-insider version is is up for dispute as well. :)

Windows Update

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just about to fire up my "let's see if Windows 10 has finally become usable" virtual machine to try this out, when I realized...

They removed Windows Update. They really don't want us to be in control of updating. Oh sure, there's still the touch version from Windows 8, but 1, I don't have a touch screen, and 2, even if I did, it doesn't provide the settings that the normal Windows Update does.

Which means that unless Microsoft decides to update my Windows 10 image behind my back, I will probably never get a fixed version of Windows 10.

Re:Windows Update

[Guspaz]

What does a touch screen have to do with anything? Win10 apps don't require touchscreens.

Insane cousin?

[emil]

Actually, that would be ALGOL

.

Finally Correct

[Hydrian]

So now it is okay to do Windows bashing?

Installling default-jre screws apt-get

[Anonymous Coward]

I screwed my apt-get doing a simple "apt-get install default-jre"

damn... this was quick

INb4 exploit

[Wolfrider]

--News article reporting a new Web-based viral exploit for the Win10 "bash" shell in 5..4..3..