[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 13:58:51 EDT 2016

Maybe I'm wrong here.. but this sounds to me like Microsoft just became a
"me too!" company.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 at 13:56 Colin Mackay <zixiekat at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160330/0e4eec24/attachment.htm>