[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 13:54:39 EDT 2016

Not sure how I feel about this.

It could be useful to have a shell I'm used to, to use the command line to
perform tasks like rsync...  Makes me wonder about things like the crontab,
fstab, etc?  I wonder how deep the integration will be.  Could I install
Samba on my Windows 10 Home box and make it an AD domain controller?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:37 PM, CrankyOldBugger <crankyoldbugger at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e0b83251/attachment.htm>