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

Wed Mar 30 13:37:42 EDT 2016

Do you still have that tinfoil hat of yours, Bob?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 at 13:06 Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:

> -----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-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20160330/77c8b268/attachment.htm>