Then there is some stupid security setting I remember always running into whenever I want to use it.
This makes it sound like you havent done really any research or significant work with powershell other than running one-liners when you need to do something that cant be done in GUI (like deal with Exchange certificates). When thats your exposure, yes, it looks clunky, but thats also ignorance speaking.
The command you want to do to get rid of that prompt is (as administrator) "Set-executionpolicy -Scope MachinePolicy -ExecutionPolicy bypass"-- this sets it forever.
Powershell looks "ugly" because it aims for clarity, not brevity. Commands are explicit in what they do, such that anyone even with no powershell experience could look at most powershell scripts and get a pretty good idea of whats happening; consider a common one-liner below:
Get-ADUser -Filter {Surname -eq "Smith"} | Foreach { Add-ADGroupMember -identity "Domain Admins" -member $_ }
The commands are wordy, but they explain exactly what they do, and each of the parameters are self-describing; you dont need to look at something like "tar -xvzf someFile" and say "gosh, what does the z switch do again".
Have you ever seen init scripts? Theyre way more painful to deal with than anything powershell ever is.
The reason they have an IDE for it is because you can use it to do incredibly complex things, like design GUIs that tie in administration elements from Active Directory, SANs, switch configuration, virtual infrastructure configuration and deployment, and computer administration-- all in one language with a common syntax.
Doing something like that would be a nightmare in bash. It sounds like you havent used powershell, which is a pretty good reason not to comment on it.
It sounds like you dont use it often, which is hardly a good reason to knock it. But I can offer a few tips:
1) Remember that just about everything is an object, with one or more attributes and methods. Even strings are objects, and can use methods such as ".equals(System.obj)". Get-Member is your friend for determining what methods and attributes apply:
"This is a string" | get-member
2) All (properly made) commands take the form of [verb]-[noun]:
get-member
set-ADUser
remove-item
get-help
3) When iterating over a group using "foreach" or "where-object", the special variable $_ is used as a placeholder for the current element:
@("arrayIndex1", "arrayIndex2") | foreach { write-host $_ }
@("RedFish", "BlueFish", "BlueBird") | where-object {$_ -like "blue*"}
4) When in doubt, use one of the following:
Get-Help [command]
Get-Command
$variable | get-member
$variable | format-list *
Im of the opinion that it takes all of about 8 hours to learn to do the majority of things you would want to do in powershell (partly because thats about how long it took me). You just have to take some time to sit down and learn it, and then make an effort to use it instead of GUI administration tools. It is far, far superior to old windows command prompt and vbs,
Good thing you dont see "us-and-them" tensions in places like China (Han vs minorities), Ukraine / Crimea, Sweden, the Middle East, or really anywhere else in the world.
Thats some good sleuthing on me being a shill, with one problem: that quote was pulled verbatim from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
It also sources the National Library of Medicine, among a number of other fairly reputable bodies. The statement you seem to have issues with-- the ppm one-- is sourced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
Great to see the knives come out when someone throws out publicly available research tho.
Im not sure I have the gist of your argument, but heres what I'm getting:
1) Chemical that is used everywhere, and also by the fracking industry, is found in our groundwater. 2) The source is unclear. 3) The chemical has been generally approved for use in food 4) Sometimes the FDA is wrong.
Ergo, the fracking industry is at fault for releasing a chemical that is toxic, and we're all at serious health risk.
Let me know if / where I missed a step, but if thats the entirety of it, it seems like a pretty weak argument.
You seem to think that anyone who thinks the complaints are overblown are part of some systemd fanclub.
Im not a full-time linux admin, Im just an observer noting that Red Hat and Debian retain their customer base despite the complaints that systemd is ruining the world, and we havent heard widespread reports of systemd induced system failures. That kind of makes me think that the complaints are vastly overstated and that the drama is unnecessary.
If things really are that bad with systemd, I would have expected to see a new, highly popular distro pop up in the last several months (or in the next few months) that blows Red Hat and Debian away-- or perhaps to see CentOS split off and do their own thing. We arent seeing that, which again makes me question the "sky is falling" claims.
If every major garage company started making garages a certain way, and a handful of people on some garage enthusiast forums started complaining that they were doing it completely wrong and the engineering priciniples sucked, I might be a little skeptical. Because, you know, if that were true, you'd have a few outcomes:
1) there would be widespread reports of the failures of said garage engineering principles
2) those companies would start losing customers en masse
3) a new competitor eschewing those changes would pop up and become incredibly popular as they gave people what they wanted.
Im not seeing that happen with systemd, which leads me to believe that either the complaints are niche, or overstated, or irrelevant, and that in any case Red Hat and Debian arent "doing it wrong" as badly as everyone on slashdot says they are.
This chemical is generally considered safe. Im not sure if you're posting in the correct topic, though its possible you fell for the media hysterics baiting.
That is an interesting and completely baseless theory, but Im not sure what anyone is supposed to do with it. If you have evidence to support it I imagine it would make for a pretty juicy story, though.
Before railing on safety as it relates to 2-butoxyethanol, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Aside from being used just about everywhere as a surfectant, it is approved by the FDA as a food additive; Im pretty sure that means its not a safety hazard.
You didnt even read what he posted. The thing that means its not toxic is that the FDA has approved it as direct and indirect food additives. Read the 2nd to last sentence of his quote.
It is severely disappointing when the discussion around something turns out to be highly misleading based on a simple wikipedia search:
2-Butoxyethanol has a low acute toxicity, with LD50 of 2.5 g/kg in rats.[3] Laboratory tests by the U. S. National Toxicology Program have shown that only sustained exposure to high concentrations (100-500 ppm) of 2-butoxyethanol can cause adrenal tumors in animals.
Before reading any further, I thought it would be a good idea to see what 2-butoxyethanol was. According to wikipedia, in addition to fracking...
2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives
Probably worth knowing before getting into a debate on whether it is fracking's fault, or how its poisoning us (from that last sentence: probably not).
Regardless of the other facts, I dont see how expecting to be paid for a product that you made and are selling shows an entitlement complex. The things you mention, perhaps. The letter? Not so much.
Im not sure if you're familiar with certificate pinning, but in any case I can assure you they have not been doing this on a wide scale, and it is nowhere near as easy as you think.
To properly intercept HTTPS, you need to know the URL-- not just the IP-- being visited. DNS can be cached, which means sometimes the MITM ISP cant know what the URL is they need to forge a certificate for.
It could be done, but would generate a ton of red flags and everyone would hear about it.
You heard wrong. CAs dont posess the private keys for the certificates they issue; they simply sign the cert. Private keys generally dont leave the server that issued the CSR.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there is some stupid security setting I remember always running into whenever I want to use it.
This makes it sound like you havent done really any research or significant work with powershell other than running one-liners when you need to do something that cant be done in GUI (like deal with Exchange certificates). When thats your exposure, yes, it looks clunky, but thats also ignorance speaking.
The command you want to do to get rid of that prompt is (as administrator) "Set-executionpolicy -Scope MachinePolicy -ExecutionPolicy bypass"-- this sets it forever.
Powershell looks "ugly" because it aims for clarity, not brevity. Commands are explicit in what they do, such that anyone even with no powershell experience could look at most powershell scripts and get a pretty good idea of whats happening; consider a common one-liner below:
Get-ADUser -Filter {Surname -eq "Smith"} | Foreach { Add-ADGroupMember -identity "Domain Admins" -member $_ }
The commands are wordy, but they explain exactly what they do, and each of the parameters are self-describing; you dont need to look at something like "tar -xvzf someFile" and say "gosh, what does the z switch do again".
It makes a difference because cron and rsync arent good tools for changing a configuration across a mixed environment with a single interface.
Have you ever seen init scripts? Theyre way more painful to deal with than anything powershell ever is.
The reason they have an IDE for it is because you can use it to do incredibly complex things, like design GUIs that tie in administration elements from Active Directory, SANs, switch configuration, virtual infrastructure configuration and deployment, and computer administration-- all in one language with a common syntax.
Doing something like that would be a nightmare in bash. It sounds like you havent used powershell, which is a pretty good reason not to comment on it.
It sounds like you dont use it often, which is hardly a good reason to knock it. But I can offer a few tips:
1) Remember that just about everything is an object, with one or more attributes and methods. Even strings are objects, and can use methods such as ".equals(System.obj)". Get-Member is your friend for determining what methods and attributes apply:
"This is a string" | get-member
2) All (properly made) commands take the form of [verb]-[noun]:
get-member
set-ADUser
remove-item
get-help
3) When iterating over a group using "foreach" or "where-object", the special variable $_ is used as a placeholder for the current element:
@("arrayIndex1", "arrayIndex2") | foreach { write-host $_ }
@("RedFish", "BlueFish", "BlueBird") | where-object {$_ -like "blue*"}
4) When in doubt, use one of the following:
Get-Help [command]
Get-Command
$variable | get-member
$variable | format-list *
Im of the opinion that it takes all of about 8 hours to learn to do the majority of things you would want to do in powershell (partly because thats about how long it took me). You just have to take some time to sit down and learn it, and then make an effort to use it instead of GUI administration tools. It is far, far superior to old windows command prompt and vbs,
Well, I know I'd believe a highly reputable source like the LA Times over schlock like the Arizona Law Review any day.
Good thing you dont see "us-and-them" tensions in places like China (Han vs minorities), Ukraine / Crimea, Sweden, the Middle East, or really anywhere else in the world.
Oh wait, you do.
Thats some good sleuthing on me being a shill, with one problem: that quote was pulled verbatim from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
It also sources the National Library of Medicine, among a number of other fairly reputable bodies. The statement you seem to have issues with-- the ppm one-- is sourced here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
Great to see the knives come out when someone throws out publicly available research tho.
Im not sure I have the gist of your argument, but heres what I'm getting:
1) Chemical that is used everywhere, and also by the fracking industry, is found in our groundwater.
2) The source is unclear.
3) The chemical has been generally approved for use in food
4) Sometimes the FDA is wrong.
Ergo, the fracking industry is at fault for releasing a chemical that is toxic, and we're all at serious health risk.
Let me know if / where I missed a step, but if thats the entirety of it, it seems like a pretty weak argument.
Thats also worth discussing, but is pretty terrible evidence in and of itself.
Clearly the FDA are shills to, as is Wikipedia for noting that this chemical is everywhere. Shills! Shills! Everywhere!
Leave it to Slashdotters to denigrate our democratic representatives and idolize a glorified dictator.
I hear Putin wrestles bears, clearly hes better for a country than our congress!
You seem to think that anyone who thinks the complaints are overblown are part of some systemd fanclub.
Im not a full-time linux admin, Im just an observer noting that Red Hat and Debian retain their customer base despite the complaints that systemd is ruining the world, and we havent heard widespread reports of systemd induced system failures. That kind of makes me think that the complaints are vastly overstated and that the drama is unnecessary.
If things really are that bad with systemd, I would have expected to see a new, highly popular distro pop up in the last several months (or in the next few months) that blows Red Hat and Debian away-- or perhaps to see CentOS split off and do their own thing. We arent seeing that, which again makes me question the "sky is falling" claims.
If every major garage company started making garages a certain way, and a handful of people on some garage enthusiast forums started complaining that they were doing it completely wrong and the engineering priciniples sucked, I might be a little skeptical. Because, you know, if that were true, you'd have a few outcomes:
1) there would be widespread reports of the failures of said garage engineering principles
2) those companies would start losing customers en masse
3) a new competitor eschewing those changes would pop up and become incredibly popular as they gave people what they wanted.
Im not seeing that happen with systemd, which leads me to believe that either the complaints are niche, or overstated, or irrelevant, and that in any case Red Hat and Debian arent "doing it wrong" as badly as everyone on slashdot says they are.
This chemical is generally considered safe. Im not sure if you're posting in the correct topic, though its possible you fell for the media hysterics baiting.
Its a food additive, too, so that may actually not be too bad.
Got to love how many people took the "media hysterics" bait, though.
That is an interesting and completely baseless theory, but Im not sure what anyone is supposed to do with it. If you have evidence to support it I imagine it would make for a pretty juicy story, though.
Before railing on safety as it relates to 2-butoxyethanol, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Aside from being used just about everywhere as a surfectant, it is approved by the FDA as a food additive; Im pretty sure that means its not a safety hazard.
You didnt even read what he posted. The thing that means its not toxic is that the FDA has approved it as direct and indirect food additives. Read the 2nd to last sentence of his quote.
Maybe that 2nd to last sentence will help:
It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives
It is severely disappointing when the discussion around something turns out to be highly misleading based on a simple wikipedia search:
2-Butoxyethanol has a low acute toxicity, with LD50 of 2.5 g/kg in rats.[3] Laboratory tests by the U. S. National Toxicology Program have shown that only sustained exposure to high concentrations (100-500 ppm) of 2-butoxyethanol can cause adrenal tumors in animals.
Before reading any further, I thought it would be a good idea to see what 2-butoxyethanol was. According to wikipedia, in addition to fracking...
2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives
Probably worth knowing before getting into a debate on whether it is fracking's fault, or how its poisoning us (from that last sentence: probably not).
Regardless of the other facts, I dont see how expecting to be paid for a product that you made and are selling shows an entitlement complex. The things you mention, perhaps. The letter? Not so much.
Im not sure if you're familiar with certificate pinning, but in any case I can assure you they have not been doing this on a wide scale, and it is nowhere near as easy as you think.
To properly intercept HTTPS, you need to know the URL-- not just the IP-- being visited. DNS can be cached, which means sometimes the MITM ISP cant know what the URL is they need to forge a certificate for.
It could be done, but would generate a ton of red flags and everyone would hear about it.
You heard wrong. CAs dont posess the private keys for the certificates they issue; they simply sign the cert. Private keys generally dont leave the server that issued the CSR.
This also stops you using Wireshark for seeing what data is actually being transmitted.
No, it doesnt, if you do the work of specifying the private keys you want wireshark to use to decode the traffic.