[kwlug-disc] Techcrunch: Microsoft is bringing the Bash shell to Windows 10 [was: Linuxaria: Open Source Has Taken over the Software Industry]

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It gets worse. Or better, depending on our point of view:

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/30/be-very-afraid-hell-has-frozen-over-bash-is-coming-to-windows-10/

> [...] developers will now be able to write their .sh Bash scripts 
> on Windows, as well (or use macs to edit their code). Microsoft 
> noted that this will work through a new Linux subsystem in Windows 
> 10 that Microsoft worked on with Canonical.

[...]

> The idea here is clearly to position Windows as a better operating
>  system for developers who want to target other platforms besides 
> Microsoft’s own. Under its new CEO Satya Nadella, the company has 
> quickly embraced the idea that it wants to target all developers 
> and platforms — not just its own.

[...]

> Bash will arrive as part of the Windows 10 Anniversary Update this
>  summer, but it’ll be available to Windows Insiders before that. 
> And looking ahead, Microsoft says it may bring other shells to 
> Windows over time, too.

Extrapolating from what Russell said, I won't be surprised if the
"Cloud" edition of Windows is actually all GNU/Linux with merely a
desktop manager that looks like MS-Windows.

- --Bob.


On 2016-03-14 08:15 AM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:10 PM, B.S. <bs27975 at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> I believe this, in and of itself, is erroneous. And what I mean
>> / what went through my mind in reading your note, is that cloud 
>> storage, in any mass repository / facility, particularly if the 
>> vendor is providing the service to multiple clients, is that the 
>> use of such facilities will be subject to their TOS.
> 
> 
> You do realize you took most of your message to discuss "the cloud"
> (server infrastructure where the owner of the data isn't the same
> as the owner of the hardware, as would be the case for a server
> room inside a corporation) in response to a message I wrote about
> desktops?
> 
> I agree with most of what you wrote about non-user controlled ICT 
> when it comes to the cloud, so that isn't the area we likely 
> disagree with.  You believe what I said was erroneous as you 
> thought I was saying that non-user controlled ICT was "safe", when 
> in fact I was talking about how nearly all desktop computers are 
> also non-user controlled ICT and is as unsafe as people perceive 
> "the cloud" to be.
> 
> I am saying it is not the physical location of the hard disks, CPU 
> or RAM that determines who controls a computer.  Computers do what 
> the software tells it to do, and who decides what software can and 
> cannot run on a computer is who controls it.  People *should* be
> as sceptical of the operations of most of the devices sitting in
> their pocket/desktop/home/etc as they are about "the cloud".
> 
> 
> Yes, but what we're talking about here is general attitude towards 
> cloud. I
>> don't expect many will so manage the entire software stack. The 
>> majority of users will still not be so covered.
>> 
> 
> Agreed, which is true of both desktop and cloud computing.   I 
> suspect the percentage of people who control the entire software 
> stack on the server side is much higher than it is on the desktop 
> side, even if those percentages are small in both cases.
> 
> In essence, you're also pointing out that we all need to do a 
> better job
>> with desktop computers, too.
> 
> 
> In 
> http://mcormond.blogspot.ca/2016/03/windows-10-last-desktop-version-of.html
>
>
> 
I suggest we should do away with the concept of a "one size fits all"
> desktop computer and move to computing where we use the right tool 
> for the right job.   I believe this is inevitable, but may be 
> delayed by people nostalgic for the way things used to be and not 
> recognizing the benefits of moving forward.
> 
> Those of us  (which is likely a majority in this forum, even if an
>  extreme minority in the general population) who are our own system
>  administrator would be using "workstations", and that majority
> who are not system administrators would move to mobile devices
> where the heavy lifting is done in server rooms where there are
> system administrators.  Users then realize they are having to
> choose between companies with system administrators that they have
> to trust with their data.  Currently their data is wide open with
> the vast majority of destkops being infected with one thing or
> another (4'th party control), and by design under 3'rd party
> control (the hardware/software vendors they have "chosen" without
> realizing what that choice meant).
> 
> 
> If your stack resides on a U.S. server, or, I suspect, if the bits 
> even
>> pass through, you are not so covered - no matter what you, 
>> yourself, do. The vendor will be required to, and will, hand
>> over your stuff, without your consent, at the mere whiff of the 
>> Patriot Act. Granted, you may have encrypted it, but they will 
>> decrypt it, eventually, if sufficiently motivated.
>> 
> 
> I am just as vulnerable running a software stack on a desktop or 
> mobile device that is under the control of a US company as I am 
> running software on a physical computer that resides within the 
> USA.   If it is the US government you are concerned with (which is 
> the least of my worries, BTW), then you should be equally worried 
> about any US government or US corporate controlled computing -- 
> regardless of the physical location of the computing.
> 
> We are relying on confusion in the legal community about how much 
> control vendors have of non-user controlled computing and the 
> physical location.  I suspect this is something that the "Apple vs 
> FBI" case may provide clarity to, in that Apple does have (even 
> with secure enclave BTW -- but I can't explain that in a 
> sound-bite) control that is very close to on-par with what a cloud 
> hosting company has over its customers.  Once those floodgates are 
> open, then it will be governments rather than only criminals 
> accessing the remote control options of these non-user controlled 
> devices.
> 
> 
> You make me thing of .mp3's, where the content is actually 
> degraded
>> versions of what one owns. And such has become normal, the 
>> degraded version becomes the norm, and what we actually
>> purchase. (.mp3's being lossy compressed versions of the
>> originals.)
>> 
> 
> I think mandatory non-owner control of computing is far more than a
> "degradation" of the computing experience, but a complete flip of 
> whether the computer is working for us or if it is working for 
> someone else against us.
> 
> I know of no "negative" music file format which sucks musing out
> of your head through your ears rather than working the other way 
> around :-)
> 
> 
> I take your point, but I also think you are missing one aspect. 
> Most trust
>> as you say, because they think their data doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it is that simple.  Most people presume there is 
> "someone" out there that is somehow protecting them from the bad 
> things in the world.  Some believe it is corporations protecting 
> them from bad governments (and thus the Apple vs FBI farce), or it 
> is governments protecting them from bad corporations, good 
> governments protecting them from bad governments, and so-on.
> They don't realize that these large bureaucracies are often even
> more confused about what is happening around them than they are,
> and that they need to learn more and do more to protect their own 
> rights -- including from the very people they are currently 
> believing are protecting them.
> 
> The independent technology community hasn't done as well as we 
> could to articulate this issue.
> 
> To me it's not about countries, it's about 3rd parties, of any 
> stripe.
>> Their agenda will never be your (one's) agenda. And once you're 
>> on the cloud, they have access, and all bets are off.
>> 
> 
> Agree with these sentences, but still concerned you don't include
> a 4'th which recognizes that with non-owner controlled devices in 
> your possession that equally "all bets are off".



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAlb8BxsACgkQuRKJsNLM5eowaQCgwZRjFQZkQ8KSVFX0EdByz3up
44QAn1ccwElsBrobOQ5Rd+i+ArRO7OJm
=+QoW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----