What BASH and SSH Mean for Windows Systems Administration
-
@RamblingBiped said:
@coliver said:
Anyone know if this is available on the LTS version?
It isn't a version of Ubuntu at all. I'm pretty sure all this is doing is abstracting the Ubuntu Linux user space and translating the system calls to the Linux kernel space to the Windows Kernel space. There is no Linux kernel, just the the Linux binaries that exist in the User space. If that makes sense. It really is like the inverse of WINE on Linux.
And while they say it is self contained and unable to execute Windows binaries, it does seem to have indirect access to the Windows kernel via this interface/api they have created to translate the calls to the Linux kernel. And because all of that is not currently open source, I would kind of think there is some potential for exploitation there.
The Windows 10 LTS release.
-
@coliver said:
@RamblingBiped said:
@coliver said:
Anyone know if this is available on the LTS version?
It isn't a version of Ubuntu at all. I'm pretty sure all this is doing is abstracting the Ubuntu Linux user space and translating the system calls to the Linux kernel space to the Windows Kernel space. There is no Linux kernel, just the the Linux binaries that exist in the User space. If that makes sense. It really is like the inverse of WINE on Linux.
And while they say it is self contained and unable to execute Windows binaries, it does seem to have indirect access to the Windows kernel via this interface/api they have created to translate the calls to the Linux kernel. And because all of that is not currently open source, I would kind of think there is some potential for exploitation there.
The Windows 10 LTS release.
Ha! Sorry, misunderstood.
-
@coliver said:
@RamblingBiped said:
@coliver said:
Anyone know if this is available on the LTS version?
It isn't a version of Ubuntu at all. I'm pretty sure all this is doing is abstracting the Ubuntu Linux user space and translating the system calls to the Linux kernel space to the Windows Kernel space. There is no Linux kernel, just the the Linux binaries that exist in the User space. If that makes sense. It really is like the inverse of WINE on Linux.
And while they say it is self contained and unable to execute Windows binaries, it does seem to have indirect access to the Windows kernel via this interface/api they have created to translate the calls to the Linux kernel. And because all of that is not currently open source, I would kind of think there is some potential for exploitation there.
The Windows 10 LTS release.
When Red Stone becomes LTS, probably, until then, nope.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@RamblingBiped said:
@coliver said:
Anyone know if this is available on the LTS version?
It isn't a version of Ubuntu at all. I'm pretty sure all this is doing is abstracting the Ubuntu Linux user space and translating the system calls to the Linux kernel space to the Windows Kernel space. There is no Linux kernel, just the the Linux binaries that exist in the User space. If that makes sense. It really is like the inverse of WINE on Linux.
And while they say it is self contained and unable to execute Windows binaries, it does seem to have indirect access to the Windows kernel via this interface/api they have created to translate the calls to the Linux kernel. And because all of that is not currently open source, I would kind of think there is some potential for exploitation there.
The Windows 10 LTS release.
When Red Stone becomes LTS, probably, until then, nope.
It was literally just added to the current Insider Preview. What are you wanting.
-
@RamblingBiped said:
@coliver said:
Anyone know if this is available on the LTS version?
It isn't a version of Ubuntu at all. I'm pretty sure all this is doing is abstracting the Ubuntu Linux user space and translating the system calls to the Linux kernel space to the Windows Kernel space. There is no Linux kernel, just the the Linux binaries that exist in the User space. If that makes sense. It really is like the inverse of WINE on Linux.
And while they say it is self contained and unable to execute Windows binaries, it does seem to have indirect access to the Windows kernel via this interface/api they have created to translate the calls to the Linux kernel. And because all of that is not currently open source, I would kind of think there is some potential for exploitation there.
That's correct. It's a POSIX subsystem exactly like the old UNIX one that Windows has had for twenty years. Only now instead of being a version of Xenix, it is based on Ubuntu. So it will be a Ubuntu system call layer.
Everyone saying Ubuntu on Windows is just confused. That's marketing hype, there isn't anything remotely like Ubuntu on Windows. This is just the opposite of Wine.
-
@RamblingBiped said:
Currently no SSH daemon available. So you can SSH from a Windows machine, but not to a Windows machine.
Once the Linux subsystem is available, that will be all fixed.
-
This article seems to have been written by someone who doesn't do windows administration, and is looking from the outside in, not understanding its power nor how it has vastly changed administration in the past decade. The claim that powershell has languished is a joke. Real windows admins after about 10-15 minutes of fiddling, shouted for joy and immediately burned all their VBS books. Warmed by the pire of the past they saddled up to that magical blue window and changed their work lives forever.
If a windows admin isn't using powershell... move along, they're not a windows admin, they're a novice or a hobbyist, or someone at a small company that does 37 other things in addition to adding user accounts twice a month to their Small Business Edition 2008R2 server that also has their GP and Exchange instance running on it (tho, that's the guy that should be making the most of PS)
Powershell IS windows administration. To claim otherwise is intentional ignorance. Adding SSH is fantastic, and adding BASH will make process management in multi OS shops very nice (depending on how deep you can get with whatever bash commands are available) but powershell is going to remain the heavy lifter, the every day use script language that flipped windows management on its ear. It is a glorious and easy to use script language, one that will continue to expand its presence, not diminish.
-
@Thranx said:
This article seems to have been written by someone who doesn't do windows administration, and is looking from the outside in, not understanding its power nor how it has vastly changed administration in the past decade. The claim that powershell has languished is a joke. Real windows admins after about 10-15 minutes of fiddling, shouted for joy and immediately burned all their VBS books. Warmed by the pire of the past they saddled up to that magical blue window and changed their work lives forever.
How many Windows Administators have you worked with? Go on Spiceworks.... almost no one uses PowerShell. Some do, lightly, but very lightly. To the point that we'd almost say that they were not using it.
How many enterprises have you worked in? I've worked in some pretty big Windows environments with $200K+ Windows Admins... none using PowerShell (or RSAT or a lot of other things.)
You define "real Windows Admins" by a bar so high, almost no one qualifies. I agree that it would be great, but find me these Windows Admins, where are they? I know a few, but only a handful.
-
@Thranx said:
If a windows admin isn't using powershell... move along, they're not a windows admin, they're a novice or a hobbyist, or someone at a small company that does 37 other things in addition to adding user accounts twice a month to their Small Business Edition 2008R2 server that also has their GP and Exchange instance running on it (tho, that's the guy that should be making the most of PS)
This is just semantics. I get it. But you are just supporting the article. You are just shifting the definition of the wording. That's fine. But the Windows world doesn't agree with you. The Linux one, does.
You can say that they are only hobbyists, but they are Windows' bread and butter. They are 90% of the people with the titles and the jobs. They are the ones filling the job queues and job submission forms. They get hired because they are everywhere.
-
@Thranx said:
Powershell IS windows administration. To claim otherwise is intentional ignorance.
The problem here is that this is very much attacking the vast majority of Windows Administrators. Or at least people who believe themselves to be.
In the Linux world, this bar is held and no one would suggest that using a GUI was doing Linux administration. But find me Windows Admins that are dedicated to not installing a GUI and doing everything from PS. I know so few. Sure, you can say that that means that nearly all Windows is run by non-admins, just hobbyists. And there is nothing wrong with that, I do the same saying that most businesses are businesses but hobbies.
But you have to be aware... the Windows world, at large, doesn't agree. That doesn't make you wrong, but you are taking the path less travelled.
But I don't think that your position changes the meaning or value of the article, it's purely semantics and only changes the semantics of the article.
-
"Windows Server continues to suffer from a culture push to use the GUI"
This is actually 100% wrong. If you talk to the server team or have installed server since 2012 r2 at all, the default option in 2012 r2 is no gui. The default in 2016 will be heavily pushed no gui. And the core technology that will be driving all the configuration of the servers?Powershell.
I agree with this statement
"This may be the move that prepares Microsoft to recycle its ecosystem, to dump the existing global pool of administrators and shake up IT bringing their own culture in line with their competition, making themselves far more viable for the world of cloud computing and removing decades of kruft that has collected around their culture and ecosystem."Except the tool that they will build all their admins on is powershell.
Have you looked at any one program from microsoft in the past few years? The exchange team has made it so you MUST use powershell. You cannot manage exchange without it. DSC is powered by powershell. Server configuration and automation - again - powershell.
Even AD tools are now powershell based.Remote management through winrm is a reality and many many admins use it. It is those admins that refuse to use it that are becoming extinct - because most people realize that doing things the old manual way is a waste of time and resources.
The linux subsystems will be great - for managing linux devices. Outside of that it's just another shell to use to interface with the hard drive. Since the bash system itself will NOT be able to interface with the rest of the system.
Oh and the SSH capabilities that were being touted about - that is a powershell feature in server 2016 (and powershell 5.1) as well.
This linux subsystem on windows will be useful in certain situations only - and only in the right environments.
-
Forgot to mention - the SSH subsystem will be available without needing to activate/install the linux subsystem. Again through powershell.
-
@Dashrender Winrm uses encryption - and uses secure kerebros authentication - its a great remote administration tool actually.
-
@Carnival-Boy
There are a few things wrong with powershell but complex no. All commands are always in the form of verb-noun, and on all commands you can always use get-help to see the syntax and examples of the command. What the author fails to realize is that everything returned from the shell (even though it looks like text) is an object. It is something those unfamiliar with powershell don't understand. In that regard it is more reliable than BASH and easier to work with. Having worked in both environments - I prefer powerhsell over BASH any day. There are a few times when BASH can come to the rescue but those are far and few between. When I need to manage linux - I of course use Bash and then retreat from there as quickly as possible.Give me objects - not text. -
@pdearmen said:
"Windows Server continues to suffer from a culture push to use the GUI"
This is actually 100% wrong. If you talk to the server team or have installed server since 2012 r2 at all, the default option in 2012 r2 is no gui. The default in 2016 will be heavily pushed no gui. And the core technology that will be driving all the configuration of the servers?I've worked with some big Windows server teams in this era. No matter what the best practices from the Microsoft corporate world are, the Windows culture remains one of GUIs. I talk to tons of Windows-only people every day and the idea that you could realistically run GUI-less is so rare and foreign as to almost not exist.
Microsoft is driving this, but the culture is resisting. Hence the point of this article.
-
@pdearmen said:
Remote management through winrm is a reality and many many admins use it. It is those admins that refuse to use it that are becoming extinct - because most people realize that doing things the old manual way is a waste of time and resources.
I agree that they will become extinct, that's the point of this article. but I do not agree, from observation of thousands of Windows admins across the field, the old way is still heavily entrenched and the culture is so deep and socially accepting of being a waste of time that Microsoft has to push hard to change this.
-
@pdearmen said:
The linux subsystems will be great - for managing linux devices.
Will it? Maybe, but I don't see it as being better than Putty at that point. Putty is so good and the WLS is just... a really heavy Putty really. I mean there are some features that would be nice, but boy are they trivial.
-
@pdearmen said:
Oh and the SSH capabilities that were being touted about - that is a powershell feature in server 2016 (and powershell 5.1) as well.
So, this is a guess, wouldn't the lack of BASH integration into Windows and SSH in PS mean that PS would be the way to manage Linux from Windows?
-
@pdearmen said:
There are a few things wrong with powershell but complex no. All commands are always in the form of verb-noun, and on all commands you can always use get-help to see the syntax and examples of the command. What the author fails to realize is that everything returned from the shell (even though it looks like text) is an object.
How did "the author" miss that everthing is an object when that was actually part of the point? I didn't just not miss it, it was part of the theme.
BASH is simpler because it has a better interface design. It returns what it shows, no trickery. PS returns an object but shows text. Get a screen of text and try to parse it and the parser doesn't work. That's basic flawed user interface design. It's not intuitive and the visual output does not match the real output.
-
I don't disagree that the object model is more powerful, something again that I have been pointing out (so could not have missed it.) But more powerful here also increases the barrier to entry and makes it that much harder for the Windows culture to adapt to. Hence, again, the article.
