News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by AdmiralAsshat on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:00PM (#9647204)
I happily await the day when I no longer need to install PuTTY on all of my fresh Windows installs.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by Someone1234 on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:09PM (#9647277)
They really need to announce a conhost replacement.

The "experiments" in Windows 10 are undeniably improvements for when we still use things like cmd, but Powershell needs a modern terminal window and there needs to be a native answer to Putty for both SSH and Powershell remoting.

I'd say after SSH this should be a priority for the Powershell team. Conhost is holding them back. A lot.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by wvenable on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:22PM (#9647384)
conhost is getting some upgrades in Windows 10: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Windows10GetsAFreshCommandProm...

Given that a lot of new development in the Windows world is focused on the console, I expect that we will see more enhancements in the future.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by pjc50 on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @05:30PM (#9649162)
One thing that I'm not 100% clear on: have they fixed multi-line selection in the Win10 command prompt?
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by bztzt on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @07:13PM (#9649630)
Yes
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by floatboth on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:36PM (#9647986)
Try ConEmu, it's a very good terminal window.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zokier on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:13PM (#9647317)
Isn't ISE pretty much what you are asking for?
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by eropple on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:21PM (#9647383)
It tries, but I think ISE is super clunky and it's awkward to use. It lacks the simplicity of a bog-standard terminal while not adding features to balance out its clunkiness (akin to the difference between a text editor an IDE--the IDE had best add something I can use if I'm going to take the hit).
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zokier on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:05PM (#9647747)
Could you expand why you find ISE clunky and awkward compared to standard terminal? I mean you can just type in stuff and get answers back with fairly minimal interference as far as I can tell, just like a regular terminal.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by eropple on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:44PM (#9648049)
I would suggest you go look at iTerm2, because an example is worth all the words in the world. tmux integration, multiple panes in a window as well as tabs, easy buffer search, instant startup, everything.

A shell host should open and do its absolute utmost to get out of my way. ISE does not do this. It's just...it's what I expect 2008 Microsoft to think a terminal should be, lacking empathy for me as a user. And maybe that's intentional--maybe I'm not the target audience. Maybe it's for mouse drivers who are forced to the CLI in extremity. But it's tasteless and it's hindering where it really must not be.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zokier on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @03:19PM (#9648285)
Those sound nice-to-have features, but (personally) I don't think the lack of those makes something "super clunky and awkward to use", especially in comparison to standard terminals. Do you think xterm is too super clunky because it lacks all the bells and whistles?

I still do not see where the lack of empathy and tastelessness is apparent in ISE.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by eropple on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @03:29PM (#9648344)
I don't think xterm is clunky, no. It doesn't try to help me, but it also doesn't get in my way. iTerm2's feature set does not increase the friction of dealing with the shell inside of it. Literally every time I have to open up ISE, I go, "jesus, why the hell is it doing things?". The experience is just straight-up repellent. It's hard to really describe past "I'd rather click a mouse than use this." And that never happens elsewhere.

But anyway, your "nice to haves" are my "it's 2015, I'm not wasting my time with less." Microsoft's got more money than God, they can do something worth the time of day.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zokier on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @03:45PM (#9648446)
Honestly, I'm getting really interested in what you find so offensive in ISE. I mean, I can see it being not so great, but being straight out offensive I can't really understand. It is perfectly understandable if you don't like PowerShell (it is kinda weird). But ISE? The most different thing in it is a "fancy" tab-completion, and that hardly can be reason to so deep hatred.

And I'm not saying ISE is the best thing ever or anything, but it is a significant step up from conhost, and honestly not really lot worse than xterm in many ways.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by Karunamon on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:48PM (#9647607)
What is ISE? Some cursory googling makes it out to be some kind of Cisco router thing.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by joombaga on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:56PM (#9647677)
The Windows PowerShell Integrated Scripting Environment

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd315244.aspx?f=...

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by sixbrx on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:47PM (#9648087)
Powershell doesn't support interactive console apps (those that want user input), so it's really not much of a cmd.exe replacement.

http://powershell.com/cs/blogs/tips/archive/2012/12/12/block...

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by lzybkr on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @05:04PM (#9648981)
To be clear - the ISE (powershell_ise.exe) doesn't support interactive console apps. powershell.exe supports them just fine.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by sixbrx on Wednesday June 03, 2015 @09:34AM (#9652365)
Yes I see you are right, thanks for the clarification. The base Powershell.exe with a better window wrapper like cmdr actually should make a nice combination.

It's really too bad the limitation on the nicer ISE though. It does make a bad first impression coming from Linux, when trying to compile and run a simple interactive console app, trying to use ISE as a cmd.exe replacement.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by phren0logy on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:33PM (#9647488)
In a recent HN thread, someone pointed me to MobaXterm (http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/) and I have gladly deleted PuTTY.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by TylerE on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @04:39PM (#9648789)
I use console2, with a cygwin zsh, and then run command line ssh inside that. Sounds a bit convoluted, but works really well and gives me the experience I desire, where remote shells and local ones look and act the same.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by MindTooth on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:49PM (#9647620)
Been using it at work for the past few weeks. Really do enjoy it. Does include support for X11Forwarding, VNC, SFTP, etc.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by newman314 on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @08:46PM (#9649959)
Awesome.

I've been stressing over finding a Windows SSH client that supports ed25519 and even thought SecureCRT recently just announced support for ECDSA, they do not have a timeframe for ed25519.

Off to try out how well this works.

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by c0wb0yc0d3r on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:03PM (#9647730)
Do you know if it has support for using an external text editor instead of the one they provide?
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by joshuacc on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @04:46PM (#9648836)
It does.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by ralphc on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @04:13PM (#9648617)
Another vote for MobaXTerm.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by egwor on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @05:36PM (#9649199)
What's wrong with putty? I've been happily using it for a few years. What have I been missing out on?!
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by baconhigh on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @05:41PM (#9649226)
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zo1 on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @07:09PM (#9649611)
I don't understand. Why doesn't Simon Tatham the original author of Putty just buy a domain, and put Putty there? Looks like he's piggy-backing off-of someone else's domain, and then relying on supposedly odd RSA/DSA signing of the provided binaries? Odd, to say the least.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by zhengyi13 on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:24PM (#9647416)
Or worse, Cygwin, because of some obscure process that needs to connect via ssh to your Windows server...
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by smhenderson on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:45PM (#9647580)
Cygwin comes with openssh-server [1]. I'll admit cygwin is quirky and not the best option always but I've used it to host ssh server on Windows in the past.

[1] https://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.using.sshd-in-domain

Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by yellowapple on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:33PM (#9647959)
Agreed here. Installing and configuring Cygwin has traditionally been a royal pain; Microsoft offering some equivalent as an officially-supported Windows add-on (or just part of the core Windows) would be a godsend.
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by rbanffy on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @05:51PM (#9649269)
Just install Cygwin with MinTTY and be happy.
[deleted]
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by Aloha on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @01:54PM (#9647659)
While I agree that a native terminal/ssh client is the best solution, putty is very much maintained still: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/changes.ht... last change was in February of 2015
Re:Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell by chadzawistowski on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @02:34PM (#9647970)
Oops, my mistake. Should have fact-checked!