Equivalent operation in Windows? - Linux

This is a discussion on Equivalent operation in Windows? - Linux ; Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks. First item was a result of a "problem": my local NNTP server has gone the way of the dodo. Not unexpected; few people were using it. Hmm, I have a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Equivalent operation in Windows?

  1. Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks.

    First item was a result of a "problem": my local NNTP server has gone the
    way of the dodo. Not unexpected; few people were using it. Hmm, I have
    a working leafnode setup at home, can I somehow make use of that?

    What I do *not* want to do is open a port to leafnode; the fewer services
    which are announced, the better. I also don't want to use something such
    as a firewall setup which allows me in from location X, but blocks
    location Y - if I want to check the news from somewhere else, that would
    keep me out as well.

    Hmm. Turns out ssh allows me to do port forwarding. Basically, I "map"
    a local port, such as 3119, to remote port 119, via ssh. Net result, ssh
    compresses, encrypts and tunnels the data from here to the remote
    leafnode server, while only ever admitting that ssh itself exists on the
    machine.

    So far so good. I can improve it a little. Set up a local leafnode
    instance, using the ssh tunnel, then point the local client at the local
    leafnode. Now I get to apply local leafnode blocks and filters, the
    benefits of leafnode caching, but via a remote leafnode cache talking to
    my home ISP's new server, while my local news client thinks it's just
    talking to a perfectly normal news server. All's good.

    Ya know, I've also got a squid caching proxy over there, complete with ad
    blocking and a mess of other funky stuff. Can I make use of that, too?

    Why yes, I can. I can set up another ssh tunnel, say from local port
    8080 to remote port 3128 (squid's default), point my browser at the
    "local" proxy server 127.0.0.1:8080 and voila - I get the benefits of the
    squid proxy I set up at home, over a compressed, encrypted connection,
    without ever announcing anything on the home machine but the ssh port -
    and again, I can do this from anywhere, simply by providing proper ssh
    credentials.

    Okay, getting better. However, there's an app or two I run at home I'd
    like to be able to run here. Sure, I could simply install 'em here, but
    turns out they sometimes conflict (think IM clients, connecting to the
    same accounts from different machines). Much better if I could run 'em
    remotely.

    Hmm.

    Yeah, okay, there's vnc and the like, but, really, ick. No, seriously,
    ick. I don't want to run a remote desktop, I want to run a remote
    _application_... and have it _behave_ as if it were running locally,
    complete with minimizing to the local system tray, etc, etc, etc.

    Enter ssh again. I can launch an ssh session, forward X over it and
    voila; my application is _running_ remotely, but _behaving_ as if it were
    running locally. Complete with system tray support and the like. And I
    *still* don't have to open a single port other than ssh.

    Oops. One of the remote clients writes logs. Not a problem, per se, but
    I'd like to keep the logs all properly synced up - not have half of them
    on the local machine, half on the remote. What can I do about this?

    Ah, yes. sshfs. Allows me to map a remote directory to a local
    directory, meaning whatever I write _here_ is automagically updated
    _there_. And, again, all over a nice compressed, encrypted channel and
    again, without ever admitting any services on the home machine other than
    ssh.

    So now I have secure remote "invisible" file mapping, secure remote
    "invisible" news service, secure remote "invisible" web caching, secure
    remote "invisible" application launching - which, again, behaves as if
    the app were run locally, none of this remote desktop nonsense - and all
    available from anywhere, as long as I have the proper credentials.

    Here's the real kicker, though. The only part of that I cannot
    reasonably expect to do with pretty much any stock Linux machine is the
    file mapping, as sshfs may not be installed. On the other hand, ssh _is_
    virtually certain to exist on a typical Linux box, meaning I can achieve
    every part of this except the file mapping on pretty much any typical
    Linux machine, using just the typical bundled tool set.

    What I really wanted to avoid was using a firewall to manage any of
    this. Not because a firewall couldn't do it, but because a firewall is
    going to be less effective. Sure, I can set up a firewall to allow
    remote file shares to machine a.b.c.d, but how do I set it up to allow
    remote file shares to an arbitrary machine _without_ even admitting the
    service is available on the box? That is, how does one set up a firewall
    to allow arbitrary machines to connect to port N, without admitting that
    port N even exists or is open? As far as I can see, you can't. With
    ssh, I can tunnel pretty much any port I want, without ever exposing the
    port to the outside world, yet still get to the port from any machine out
    there.



    So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?

    How does one tunnel connections?
    How does one set up port forwarding?
    How does one launch remote apps, which behave as if they're local?
    How does one map directories, without exposing the shares?
    How does one do this all using encrypted connections?
    How does one do this such that arbitrary machines can use all these
    services, without even admitting the services _exist_ - i.e. not exposing
    their ports?

    And perhaps most importantly, how does one do this without relying on
    additional software one _cannot_ reasonably expect to be available on an
    arbitrary Windows machine?

    I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate this
    sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.


  2. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:fcv9d5-3dn.ln1@spanky.work.net...


    - a bunch of crap that less than 0.6% of the world cares about.

    > So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    > Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?
    >
    > How does one tunnel connections?
    > How does one set up port forwarding?
    > How does one launch remote apps, which behave as if they're local?
    > How does one map directories, without exposing the shares?
    > How does one do this all using encrypted connections?
    > How does one do this such that arbitrary machines can use all these
    > services, without even admitting the services _exist_ - i.e. not exposing
    > their ports?
    >
    > And perhaps most importantly, how does one do this without relying on
    > additional software one _cannot_ reasonably expect to be available on an
    > arbitrary Windows machine?
    >
    > I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    > this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate this
    > sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.



    Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this. My friends
    could care less about using ssh to setup port forwarding.

    What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a iPhone
    or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest video-game or
    Blu-Ray disk on their computer.

    Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.





    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:25:09 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks.
    >
    > First item was a result of a "problem": my local NNTP server has gone the
    > way of the dodo. Not unexpected; few people were using it. Hmm, I have
    > a working leafnode setup at home, can I somehow make use of that?
    >
    > What I do *not* want to do is open a port to leafnode; the fewer services
    > which are announced, the better. I also don't want to use something such
    > as a firewall setup which allows me in from location X, but blocks
    > location Y - if I want to check the news from somewhere else, that would
    > keep me out as well.
    >
    > Hmm. Turns out ssh allows me to do port forwarding. Basically, I "map"
    > a local port, such as 3119, to remote port 119, via ssh. Net result, ssh
    > compresses, encrypts and tunnels the data from here to the remote
    > leafnode server, while only ever admitting that ssh itself exists on the
    > machine.
    >
    > So far so good. I can improve it a little. Set up a local leafnode
    > instance, using the ssh tunnel, then point the local client at the local
    > leafnode. Now I get to apply local leafnode blocks and filters, the
    > benefits of leafnode caching, but via a remote leafnode cache talking to
    > my home ISP's new server, while my local news client thinks it's just
    > talking to a perfectly normal news server. All's good.
    >
    > Ya know, I've also got a squid caching proxy over there, complete with ad
    > blocking and a mess of other funky stuff. Can I make use of that, too?
    >
    > Why yes, I can. I can set up another ssh tunnel, say from local port
    > 8080 to remote port 3128 (squid's default), point my browser at the
    > "local" proxy server 127.0.0.1:8080 and voila - I get the benefits of the
    > squid proxy I set up at home, over a compressed, encrypted connection,
    > without ever announcing anything on the home machine but the ssh port -
    > and again, I can do this from anywhere, simply by providing proper ssh
    > credentials.
    >
    > Okay, getting better. However, there's an app or two I run at home I'd
    > like to be able to run here. Sure, I could simply install 'em here, but
    > turns out they sometimes conflict (think IM clients, connecting to the
    > same accounts from different machines). Much better if I could run 'em
    > remotely.
    >
    > Hmm.
    >
    > Yeah, okay, there's vnc and the like, but, really, ick. No, seriously,
    > ick. I don't want to run a remote desktop, I want to run a remote
    > _application_... and have it _behave_ as if it were running locally,
    > complete with minimizing to the local system tray, etc, etc, etc.
    >
    > Enter ssh again. I can launch an ssh session, forward X over it and
    > voila; my application is _running_ remotely, but _behaving_ as if it were
    > running locally. Complete with system tray support and the like. And I
    > *still* don't have to open a single port other than ssh.
    >
    > Oops. One of the remote clients writes logs. Not a problem, per se, but
    > I'd like to keep the logs all properly synced up - not have half of them
    > on the local machine, half on the remote. What can I do about this?
    >
    > Ah, yes. sshfs. Allows me to map a remote directory to a local
    > directory, meaning whatever I write _here_ is automagically updated
    > _there_. And, again, all over a nice compressed, encrypted channel and
    > again, without ever admitting any services on the home machine other than
    > ssh.
    >
    > So now I have secure remote "invisible" file mapping, secure remote
    > "invisible" news service, secure remote "invisible" web caching, secure
    > remote "invisible" application launching - which, again, behaves as if
    > the app were run locally, none of this remote desktop nonsense - and all
    > available from anywhere, as long as I have the proper credentials.
    >
    > Here's the real kicker, though. The only part of that I cannot
    > reasonably expect to do with pretty much any stock Linux machine is the
    > file mapping, as sshfs may not be installed. On the other hand, ssh _is_
    > virtually certain to exist on a typical Linux box, meaning I can achieve
    > every part of this except the file mapping on pretty much any typical
    > Linux machine, using just the typical bundled tool set.
    >
    > What I really wanted to avoid was using a firewall to manage any of
    > this. Not because a firewall couldn't do it, but because a firewall is
    > going to be less effective. Sure, I can set up a firewall to allow
    > remote file shares to machine a.b.c.d, but how do I set it up to allow
    > remote file shares to an arbitrary machine _without_ even admitting the
    > service is available on the box? That is, how does one set up a firewall
    > to allow arbitrary machines to connect to port N, without admitting that
    > port N even exists or is open? As far as I can see, you can't. With
    > ssh, I can tunnel pretty much any port I want, without ever exposing the
    > port to the outside world, yet still get to the port from any machine out
    > there.
    >
    >
    >
    > So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    > Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?
    >
    > How does one tunnel connections?
    > How does one set up port forwarding?
    > How does one launch remote apps, which behave as if they're local?
    > How does one map directories, without exposing the shares?
    > How does one do this all using encrypted connections?
    > How does one do this such that arbitrary machines can use all these
    > services, without even admitting the services _exist_ - i.e. not exposing
    > their ports?
    >
    > And perhaps most importantly, how does one do this without relying on
    > additional software one _cannot_ reasonably expect to be available on an
    > arbitrary Windows machine?
    >
    > I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    > this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate this
    > sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.


    God are you boring Kelsey......
    Why don't you find a boyfriend or something more interesting to occupy your
    time.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Kasey Bjarnasen wrote:
    > Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks.
    >


    If Spamowitz and Liarnut can use SSH you can too.

  5. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Ezekiel wrote:

    > Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this. My
    > friends could care less about using ssh to setup port forwarding.
    >
    > What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a iPhone
    > or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest video-game
    > or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >
    > Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.


    In the World of the WinTroll, knowledge and self-reliance become the
    attributes of a "loser."

    No wonder Micro$haft is flailing.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  6. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:25:09 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    > Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?


    Of course the key word you have there is "bundled". You know quite well
    that there are win32 sshd implementations. You can even run some of them
    as stand-alone apps without the need to install.

    Everything sshd does on Linux can be done on Windows, even the remote
    application with TS RemoteApps. Having said that, there are other choices
    for "built-in".

    > How does one tunnel connections?


    IPSEC, or Terminal Services Gateway (tunneling over HTTP)

    > How does one set up port forwarding?


    No need when you have a vpn.

    > How does one launch remote apps, which behave as if they're local?


    Terminal Services RemoteApp's

    > How does one map directories, without exposing the shares?


    Terminal Services has drive mapping.

    > How does one do this all using encrypted connections?


    Terminal Services is encrypted, as are VPN's.

    > How does one do this such that arbitrary machines can use all these
    > services, without even admitting the services _exist_ - i.e. not exposing
    > their ports?


    I would have to wonder how, precisesly, one could tunnel stuff over an
    encrypted connection and have them somehow exposed. By that I mean you're
    being redundant, because it was already answered by your earlier questions.

    > And perhaps most importantly, how does one do this without relying on
    > additional software one _cannot_ reasonably expect to be available on an
    > arbitrary Windows machine?


    USB key, downloading a portable sshd server, or using the built-ins.

    > I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    > this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate this
    > sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.


    Sorry to light your carefully constructed strawman on fire.

  7. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Ezekiel wrote:

    >
    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    > news:fcv9d5-3dn.ln1@spanky.work.net...
    >
    >
    > - a bunch of crap that less than 0.6% of the world cares about.
    >
    >> So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    >> Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?
    >>
    >> How does one tunnel connections?
    >> How does one set up port forwarding?
    >> How does one launch remote apps, which behave as if they're local?
    >> How does one map directories, without exposing the shares?
    >> How does one do this all using encrypted connections?
    >> How does one do this such that arbitrary machines can use all these
    >> services, without even admitting the services _exist_ - i.e. not exposing
    >> their ports?
    >>
    >> And perhaps most importantly, how does one do this without relying on
    >> additional software one _cannot_ reasonably expect to be available on an
    >> arbitrary Windows machine?
    >>
    >> I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    >> this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate this
    >> sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.

    >
    >
    > Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this. My
    > friends could care less about using ssh to setup port forwarding.
    >
    > What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a iPhone
    > or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest video-game
    > or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >
    > Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.


    You do realize that without tech-savvy, tinker-happy people such as mr.
    Bjarnason there wouldn't *be* iPhones, Garmin GPS maps, Blu-Ray disks, or
    even Internet or computers?

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  8. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    [snips]

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:58:09 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > - a bunch of crap that less than 0.6% of the world cares about.


    Meaning some percentage _does_ care. So again, how does one do this in
    Windows?

    > Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this.


    Really? Hmm. Such a setup allows me to use my applications, my
    services, my files, from anywhere in the world in near-total safety.
    Yeah, I can see how only a loser with no life would care about *that*.


  9. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    [snips]

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:52:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:25:09 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >> So the obvious question becomes how to do the equivalent in Windows -
    >> Vista, say - using *its* bundled tool set?


    > Of course the key word you have there is "bundled".


    Of course.

    Put this in context of, oh, buying a car. Linux gives me seats and
    wheels and body and engine and brakes and lights and mirrors and frame
    and on and on and on.

    By contrast, Windows gives me engine and paint. In order to actually
    *use* the product, one needs to add on an endless variety of extra tools
    and goodies - and that's just to make it *basically* useful for anything
    much beyond simply looking at the pretty paint job.

    I just checked with a popular local retailer. Their price on Vista Home
    Basic is $179.99. My cost for, oh, say, Ubuntu on DVD is about 25 cents
    for the DVD blank and 4GB of my bundled bandwidth to download it. Call
    it five bucks, total, if you're being generous.

    So the question is, what *functionality* do I get for 36 times the
    price? I should at least get functionality *parity*, right? I mean,
    realistically, I should be expecting 36 times the functionality, as that
    would actually bring what I get in line with what I pay - so what
    *functionality* do I get for this 36 times higher price tag?

    And here's a perfect example. Something easy to do, which gives me the
    benefits of relatively high security, high flexibility and high
    accessibility in performing a fairly simple task: accessing files and
    programs on my machine, remotely, in a manner consistent with how I
    prefer to use those apps and files (i.e. not remote desktop).

    So where's the Windows solution to the problem? The one *bundled* with
    Windows, that justifies paying 36 times more for it?

    > I would have to wonder how, precisesly, one could tunnel stuff over an
    > encrypted connection and have them somehow exposed. By that I mean
    > you're being redundant, because it was already answered by your earlier
    > questions.


    Tunnelling is not the same as securing.

    >> I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    >> this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate
    >> this sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.

    >
    > Sorry to light your carefully constructed strawman on fire.


    Did a little reading on this, and no, I don't think this quite works.

    For example, take my news client. It is set up (actually, the local
    server is, but either way) to talk to local port 3119. ssh traps that,
    tunnels it across to the other machine, on port 22, then remaps it at
    that end to port 119 - the standard nntp port. Note that the nntp port
    is not exposed at all. However, also note I'm not running the news
    client off the remote LAN, I'm running it locally.

    So let's examine the options you mention. Terminal Services Gateway, you
    say? Sounds good. What's MS got to say about that?

    Requirement 1: You must have a server with Windows Server 2008 installed.

    Okay, well, you've just ruled that out as an option for, well, pretty
    much everybody, and certainly as a comparable offering to what I can do
    with ssh. So let's look at your other solution, IPSEC.

    Hmm. From what I'm reading, you can use it to secure a port, map ports,
    do all sorts of fun stuff like that... but you still have to _expose_ the
    port. EG, if I want to be able to access my news server, I can map
    "visible" port 9119 to "internal" port 119 and secure it, but I still
    need to expose that port 9119 - and this again requires a policy
    definition on the "server" computer.

    Whereas with ssh, I don't need to expose anything but the ssh port and I
    can create the mappings I need _from the client_.

    Am I missing something there, or is this really just a case of, in the
    end, no, Windows just can't do that?

    Here, I'll make it simple.

    1) Install ssh - takes about 30 seconds, depending on your connection [1]
    2) Edit the config to allow tunelling
    3) Reload ssh

    So much for the "server" side. Takes all of a minute, tops.

    Client side...

    1) Install ssh [1]
    2) Create tunnels as necessary
    3) Use tunnels

    Again, takes all of a minute, tops.

    [1] as noted elsewhere, chances are ssh is already installed.

    If you want to map directories:

    1) Install sshfs (takes 30 seconds or less)
    2) use sshfs to mount remote folder to local


    So what has Vista got that allows me as much flexibility, with as much
    ease, using only "bundled" tools and apps? Yeah, fine, it'll do a full
    and proper "vpn" - which I can do if I want, but which I don't need or
    want - but can it do something as simple, as effective, and as useful as
    what I can do with ssh?

    Here's an example:

    ssh -L 8080:localhost:3128 myhomeip -N &

    Looks somewhat complex, but it's not, really. Just says map port 8080 at
    localhost to port 3128 at myhomeip, don't run any remote program, and go
    to background.

    Just did the exact same thing for local port 8108 - now I have two
    tunnels to the remote proxy.

    Meanwhile, the remote machine is exposing exactly two ports: port 80 (I
    run a web server on it) and port 22. Which I can use for tunnelling from
    anywhere in the known universe, as long as ssh is available, simply by
    saying what local port to use, what remote port to use and giving my
    credentials as needed.

    Everything I'm seeing about IPSEC and TS gateway suggests that a) one of
    'em ain't liable to be available on your typical Windows home machine,
    and b) the one that is requires a mess of "server side" setup to allow
    such things to work at all.

    So what's your actual solution to the problem? How would you do it?


  10. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    [snips]

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:16:25 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

    >> What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a
    >> iPhone or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest
    >> video-game or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >>
    >> Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.

    >
    > You do realize that without tech-savvy, tinker-happy people such as mr.
    > Bjarnason there wouldn't *be* iPhones, Garmin GPS maps, Blu-Ray disks,
    > or even Internet or computers?




    Even non-savvy folks can contribute. All it takes is saying "Gee,
    wouldn't it be nice if..." to the right person.

    However, even *that* requires that one actually be interested in
    maximizing what one can do, even if only for a single purpose, with a
    computer. Or even a cell phone.

    "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if computers could connect to each other, so we
    could share our data more easily?" Could be the most fritter-brained
    stereotypical dumb blonde in existence who said it in the first place,
    but the _idea_ led to modems and BBSes and TCP/IP and the internet and
    the whole blinkin' rest of it.

    See, the thing is, I suspect Windows can do _most_ of what I'm
    suggesting, if not in fact all of it. Thing is, I wonder if it can do it
    realistically.

    Take the elsewhere mentioned Terminal Services Gateway as a proposed
    solution; Technet suggests this requires Windows Server 2008. As in, not
    something I'm likely to be running as my home desktop, where I can set
    this sort of thing up more or less on a lark. So can _Windows_ do the
    job? Part of it, certainly... but in a manner remotely similar to what
    I'm suggesting, that is, simply changing a setting or two on my home
    desktop and voila, I have all the necessary magic to pull the job off?

    No, that appears to be a different matter entirely. Even the ipsec
    route, which one can expect to be a little more readily available, seems
    to require considerably more effort, from what I'm reading, to achieve a
    less flexible result - and as far as I can see, doesn't actually give me
    the full range of results I'm looking for.

    The proper response to this sort of situation, as you imply, is to say
    "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if..." and come up with a functional solution.

    I guess what I find most amusing about it all is this ever-present notion
    of "Well, you can do it in Windows, but" - and there's always a "but".
    But you have to be running a server version. But you have to use some
    third-party app which is almost certain to be a commercial app. But it
    doesn't work quite as flexibly. But it doesn't work as easily. But it
    requires you pre-set all these options on the serving machine. But, but,
    but.

    I guess it comes down to this: if you're using Windows as an "appliance",
    it works well enough. If you're a little more like me - a geek, sure,
    but a geek who wants to do things out of the pale, either because they're
    useful or simply to see if or how I can do 'em - then Windows ceases to
    be quite so wonderful and starts getting in the way.

    Here's a laugh. The girlfriend's sister is coming over for dinner
    tonight and bringing her computer with her. Why? Her Windows XP is
    gibbled. When she boots, she gets a message about the profile not being
    found, XP is using a temporary profile, nothing she does during the
    session will be saved. Yeah, that's useful. So we get to feed her
    dinner while I figure out how to save XP from yet another round of
    Windows screwups.

    Okay, admittedly, this one is user error - apparently her better half
    prefers to simply hit the power switch rather than shutting the machine
    down properly - but net result for me is the same: I get to clean up the
    mess.


  11. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:

    > So what's your actual solution to the problem? How would you do it?


    http://sshwindows.sourceforge.net/

    The biggest disadvantage of this is, of course, buying and running
    Windows, but nonetheless it is a solution.

    I assume there are Windows equivalents of the various services you
    mentioned, FOSS or otherwise. The rest falls into place thereafter
    (assuming OpenSSH for Windows facilitates tunnelling). Whether or
    not you feel comfortable running services on a Windows zombie ...
    ahem, I mean machine (tunnelled or not), is quite another thing.

    That's the great thing about Free Software, its freedom enables it
    to be used anywhere, even on non-Free platforms (depending on your
    POV this may also be a bad thing). One might ask the question "why
    bother, why not just use Linux?", but that's not really the point.

    The one service that you may have difficulty with is X forwarding.
    I'm not personally aware of anything like that for Windows, apart
    from whole-desktop arrangements like VNC.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    00:12:58 up 114 days, 20:48, 5 users, load average: 2.26, 2.18, 1.69

  12. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:30:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    >> Of course the key word you have there is "bundled".

    >
    > Of course.
    >
    > Put this in context of, oh, buying a car. Linux gives me seats and
    > wheels and body and engine and brakes and lights and mirrors and frame
    > and on and on and on.
    >
    > By contrast, Windows gives me engine and paint. In order to actually
    > *use* the product, one needs to add on an endless variety of extra tools
    > and goodies - and that's just to make it *basically* useful for anything
    > much beyond simply looking at the pretty paint job.


    Actually, Linux is a lot more like that. Windows is more like ordering a
    customly configured car, while Linux is more like the kit car where you
    have to put it all together yourself, even though it gives you everything.

    > I just checked with a popular local retailer. Their price on Vista Home
    > Basic is $179.99. My cost for, oh, say, Ubuntu on DVD is about 25 cents
    > for the DVD blank and 4GB of my bundled bandwidth to download it. Call
    > it five bucks, total, if you're being generous.


    These arguments are always the same. You start out claiming Linux is
    *technically* superior and that it can do this and that that Windows can't
    (But first you need to artificially stack the deck by claiming you can only
    include stuff that's installed by default, ignoring of course that much of
    Linux often gets installed via a net connection anyways).

    Then, when it's sown that your technical arguments are just wishful
    thinking, you fall back on the price argument.

    > So the question is, what *functionality* do I get for 36 times the
    > price? I should at least get functionality *parity*, right? I mean,
    > realistically, I should be expecting 36 times the functionality, as that
    > would actually bring what I get in line with what I pay - so what
    > *functionality* do I get for this 36 times higher price tag?


    What you get is a solid, polished product where people make products that
    actually 'work" out of the box, instead of having to dink with them for
    days to make something as simple as, oh, say, dual screen monitors work
    correctly.

    > And here's a perfect example. Something easy to do, which gives me the
    > benefits of relatively high security, high flexibility and high
    > accessibility in performing a fairly simple task: accessing files and
    > programs on my machine, remotely, in a manner consistent with how I
    > prefer to use those apps and files (i.e. not remote desktop).
    >
    > So where's the Windows solution to the problem? The one *bundled* with
    > Windows, that justifies paying 36 times more for it?


    You grossly misrepresent the cost factor. You're not paying for
    funcitonality, you're paying because Windows is a commercial product, and
    Linux isn't.

    Commercial products have commercial apps, commercial training, and
    commercial benefits. You started this as a *technical* argument, so why
    don't you keep the goalposts where they are.

    Ssh is a simple, free download away, just like it is on many Linux systems.

    >> I would have to wonder how, precisesly, one could tunnel stuff over an
    >> encrypted connection and have them somehow exposed. By that I mean
    >> you're being redundant, because it was already answered by your earlier
    >> questions.

    >
    > Tunnelling is not the same as securing.


    In this context it is.

    >>> I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    >>> this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate
    >>> this sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.

    >>
    >> Sorry to light your carefully constructed strawman on fire.

    >
    > Did a little reading on this, and no, I don't think this quite works.


    You need to read more.

    > So let's examine the options you mention. Terminal Services Gateway, you
    > say? Sounds good. What's MS got to say about that?
    >
    > Requirement 1: You must have a server with Windows Server 2008 installed.
    >
    > Okay, well, you've just ruled that out as an option for, well, pretty
    > much everybody, and certainly as a comparable offering to what I can do
    > with ssh. So let's look at your other solution, IPSEC.


    Moving the goalposts again I see. You asked how to do it in Windows.
    However, many of the features work in normal termainal services as well.

    > Hmm. From what I'm reading, you can use it to secure a port, map ports,
    > do all sorts of fun stuff like that... but you still have to _expose_ the
    > port. EG, if I want to be able to access my news server, I can map
    > "visible" port 9119 to "internal" port 119 and secure it, but I still
    > need to expose that port 9119 - and this again requires a policy
    > definition on the "server" computer.


    You are wrong. You need to read more. IPSEC is also a VPN tunneling

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec

    "IPsec was intended to provide either transport mode (end-to-end) security
    of packet traffic in which the end-point computers do the security
    processing, *OR TUNNEL MODE* (portal-to-portal) communications security in
    which security of packet traffic is provided to several machines (even to
    whole LANs) by a single node."

    Even if it were true, IPSEC allows connections to *NOT* be exposed unless
    you have the appropriate certificate. This means you're not limited to
    only certain locations or IP addresses, you can use it anywhere so long as
    you present the right credentials.

  13. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    RonB wrote:
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this. My
    >> friends could care less about using ssh to setup port forwarding.
    >>
    >> What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a
    >> iPhone or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the
    >> latest video-game or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >>
    >> Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.

    >
    > In the World of the WinTroll, knowledge and self-reliance become the
    > attributes of a "loser."


    Then go ahead and show us your "knowledge and self-reliance".






    > No wonder Micro$haft is flailing.


    Flailing is releasing *at least* 1,000 new distro versions/updates per year,
    but seeing them virtually ignored in the marketplace.

    Flailing is not being able to give your work away.

    Flailing is an "operating system" that produces an incredible rate of
    complaints about it freezing and locking up and losing work/data and
    requiring hard boots.

    Linux flails like no other technology in existence.




  14. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    [snips]

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:21:36 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > These arguments are always the same. You start out claiming Linux is
    > *technically* superior and that it can do this and that that Windows
    > can't (But first you need to artificially stack the deck by claiming you
    > can only include stuff that's installed by default, ignoring of course
    > that much of Linux often gets installed via a net connection anyways).
    >
    > Then, when it's sown that your technical arguments are just wishful
    > thinking, you fall back on the price argument.


    Just as an aside, I find the above comment amusing. Why? Because we're
    discussing things I can do trivially in about two minutes on a desktop
    box I use daily, with no particularly special extra tools or the like...
    and your response wants me to drop largish amounts of change to set up a
    new machine, running a server version of the OS, all to accomplish what
    should be two minute's work at zero cost to be remotely comparable to
    what I'm doing... then you have the nads to complain I'm changing
    goalposts.

    Good goat, that is humour.


  15. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:21:36 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:30:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >>> Of course the key word you have there is "bundled".

    >>
    >> Of course.
    >>
    >> Put this in context of, oh, buying a car. Linux gives me seats and
    >> wheels and body and engine and brakes and lights and mirrors and frame
    >> and on and on and on.
    >>
    >> By contrast, Windows gives me engine and paint. In order to actually
    >> *use* the product, one needs to add on an endless variety of extra tools
    >> and goodies - and that's just to make it *basically* useful for anything
    >> much beyond simply looking at the pretty paint job.

    >
    > Actually, Linux is a lot more like that. Windows is more like ordering a
    > customly configured car, while Linux is more like the kit car where you
    > have to put it all together yourself, even though it gives you everything.


    Everything but instructions.
    They expect you to Google for those.
    And then you have to make certain you have the correct instructions for
    your particular model, down to the build hour because things change by the
    hour.

    >> I just checked with a popular local retailer. Their price on Vista Home
    >> Basic is $179.99. My cost for, oh, say, Ubuntu on DVD is about 25 cents
    >> for the DVD blank and 4GB of my bundled bandwidth to download it. Call
    >> it five bucks, total, if you're being generous.

    >
    > These arguments are always the same. You start out claiming Linux is
    > *technically* superior and that it can do this and that that Windows can't
    > (But first you need to artificially stack the deck by claiming you can only
    > include stuff that's installed by default, ignoring of course that much of
    > Linux often gets installed via a net connection anyways).


    That's out Kelsey!
    She has been pulling this same crap for years and just about every single
    time she gets shot down, badly.

    > Then, when it's sown that your technical arguments are just wishful
    > thinking, you fall back on the price argument.


    Maybe we should all chip in and buy Kelsey a white suit like John Travolta
    wore in Saturday Night Fever.
    I'm not sure how it would look on a female, but these days you never know.



    >> So the question is, what *functionality* do I get for 36 times the
    >> price? I should at least get functionality *parity*, right? I mean,
    >> realistically, I should be expecting 36 times the functionality, as that
    >> would actually bring what I get in line with what I pay - so what
    >> *functionality* do I get for this 36 times higher price tag?

    >
    > What you get is a solid, polished product where people make products that
    > actually 'work" out of the box, instead of having to dink with them for
    > days to make something as simple as, oh, say, dual screen monitors work
    > correctly.


    I see you have tried to make 2 monitors work CORRECTLY with Linux.
    It's a horror show, but of course the Linux nuts will claim "it just
    works".

    It doesn't.

    >> And here's a perfect example. Something easy to do, which gives me the
    >> benefits of relatively high security, high flexibility and high
    >> accessibility in performing a fairly simple task: accessing files and
    >> programs on my machine, remotely, in a manner consistent with how I
    >> prefer to use those apps and files (i.e. not remote desktop).
    >>
    >> So where's the Windows solution to the problem? The one *bundled* with
    >> Windows, that justifies paying 36 times more for it?

    >
    > You grossly misrepresent the cost factor. You're not paying for
    > funcitonality, you're paying because Windows is a commercial product, and
    > Linux isn't.


    Linux is free as long as your time has no value.



    > Commercial products have commercial apps, commercial training, and
    > commercial benefits. You started this as a *technical* argument, so why
    > don't you keep the goalposts where they are.


    Because she lost from the very first reply, just like she always does.

    > Ssh is a simple, free download away, just like it is on many Linux systems.


    Yep.

    >>> I would have to wonder how, precisesly, one could tunnel stuff over an
    >>> encrypted connection and have them somehow exposed. By that I mean
    >>> you're being redundant, because it was already answered by your earlier
    >>> questions.

    >>
    >> Tunnelling is not the same as securing.

    >
    > In this context it is.
    >
    >>>> I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    >>>> this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate
    >>>> this sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry to light your carefully constructed strawman on fire.

    >>
    >> Did a little reading on this, and no, I don't think this quite works.

    >
    > You need to read more.


    And write less.


    >> So let's examine the options you mention. Terminal Services Gateway, you
    >> say? Sounds good. What's MS got to say about that?
    >>
    >> Requirement 1: You must have a server with Windows Server 2008 installed.
    >>
    >> Okay, well, you've just ruled that out as an option for, well, pretty
    >> much everybody, and certainly as a comparable offering to what I can do
    >> with ssh. So let's look at your other solution, IPSEC.

    >
    > Moving the goalposts again I see. You asked how to do it in Windows.
    > However, many of the features work in normal termainal services as well.


    Those goalposts should be in Warsaw by now...

    >> Hmm. From what I'm reading, you can use it to secure a port, map ports,
    >> do all sorts of fun stuff like that... but you still have to _expose_ the
    >> port. EG, if I want to be able to access my news server, I can map
    >> "visible" port 9119 to "internal" port 119 and secure it, but I still
    >> need to expose that port 9119 - and this again requires a policy
    >> definition on the "server" computer.

    >
    > You are wrong. You need to read more. IPSEC is also a VPN tunneling
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec
    >
    > "IPsec was intended to provide either transport mode (end-to-end) security
    > of packet traffic in which the end-point computers do the security
    > processing, *OR TUNNEL MODE* (portal-to-portal) communications security in
    > which security of packet traffic is provided to several machines (even to
    > whole LANs) by a single node."
    >
    > Even if it were true, IPSEC allows connections to *NOT* be exposed unless
    > you have the appropriate certificate. This means you're not limited to
    > only certain locations or IP addresses, you can use it anywhere so long as
    > you present the right credentials.


    And once again Kelsey gets flushed.
    Why she continues to post these diatribes is beyond me.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  16. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    * Don Romero peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Kasey Bjarnasen wrote:
    >> Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks.

    >
    > If Spamowitz and Liarnut can use SSH you can too.


    Who the heck are "Spamowitz" and "Liarnut"?

    Is that you, Hadron, you big feeb!?

    --
    We will never make a 32-bit operating system.
    -- Bill Gates, At the launch of MSX[3]

  17. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:30:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Even if it were true, IPSEC allows connections to *NOT* be exposed unless
    > you have the appropriate certificate. This means you're not limited to
    > only certain locations or IP addresses, you can use it anywhere so long as
    > you present the right credentials.


    All arguing aside, ssh is a pretty cool Swiss Army knife of
    functionality, and often quite simply and light compared to the
    alternatives.

    --
    Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
    -- Bill Gates

  18. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  19. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    > You do realize that without tech-savvy, tinker-happy people such as mr.
    > Bjarnason there wouldn't be iPhones, Garmin GPS maps, Blu-Ray disks, or
    > even Internet or computers?


    I'm sure he *doesn't* realize that. His barely there brain is just now
    starting to itch with the "novel" concept that the sun somehow means
    daylight.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  20. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:45:03 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > [snips]
    >
    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:21:36 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> These arguments are always the same. You start out claiming Linux is
    >> *technically* superior and that it can do this and that that Windows
    >> can't (But first you need to artificially stack the deck by claiming you
    >> can only include stuff that's installed by default, ignoring of course
    >> that much of Linux often gets installed via a net connection anyways).
    >>
    >> Then, when it's sown that your technical arguments are just wishful
    >> thinking, you fall back on the price argument.

    >
    > Just as an aside, I find the above comment amusing. Why? Because we're
    > discussing things I can do trivially in about two minutes on a desktop
    > box I use daily, with no particularly special extra tools or the like...
    > and your response wants me to drop largish amounts of change to set up a
    > new machine, running a server version of the OS, all to accomplish what
    > should be two minute's work at zero cost to be remotely comparable to
    > what I'm doing... then you have the nads to complain I'm changing
    > goalposts.
    >
    > Good goat, that is humour.


    Did it ever occur to you that what others have the same opinion? They
    already ahve windows boxes and the tools to do such things?

    Just because you're invested in one technology, don't make the assumptiont
    that everyone else is as well.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast