Just out of curiosity: why is PuttyTel.exe not included in the All-in-one .zip file on Putty download page?
Quoted from Simon:
"Because we don't expect anyone to have a use for both PuTTY and
PuTTYtel, so the all-in-one zip file contains the maximal set of
programs that we expect any individual user to want to use together.
We've always assumed that anyone using PuTTYtel must be doing so
because they aren't allowed cryptographic software in their
jurisdiction, in which case they couldn't use any of the other
programs in the suite anyway, so PuTTYtel would be the only thing
they could legally download. (I suppose we could easily enough build a
sort of 'Plinktel' - Plink with the SSH protocol removed - but
nobody's ever asked for it.)"
Related
I'm installing Ruby (in order to eventually be able to use Redmine) on my Win 10 laptop.
I realize how critical the whole install process is and I'm wondering if there are real threats not to check the various SHA given there : https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2015/04/13/ruby-2-2-2-released/.
I guess it's needed if you don't trust the source you're downloading from, but I found it through my usual search engine (ie qwant).
If this verification is really a must-do, how can I do it ?
One of the SHA's given is :
SHA1: 7d26835cb7711dfe75f2c10fe38cb85f5ed56df5
I'm on Win 10, so I picked one from the .zip list.
To prevent tampering (but if the download is through https you are safe).
Theory is pretty well introduced here.
Hands on side, in short, you need to execute $>sha1sum my_file.exe in PowerShell, and check if the hash is the expected one.
https://imgur.com/q3yYVXO
I have my own installer program which I use to install several applications I have written.
I have been updating this program to avoid the application's data file updates going to the user's VirtualStore, as I read this was a "bad thing". I am doing this by storing the program and common data files separately in their correct locations, instead of sticking everything in Program Files like we used to do in the days of XP.
I am also now using SHGetFolderPath (yes, it's deprecated, but I still need to support my XP users), to get known folders instead of trawling the registry, which is another "bad thing" (I read).
The next thing I was trying to do was rewrite the installer code to avoid registry redirection to Wow6432Node when writing stuff to HKLM, as I thought this was another "bad thing".
However, although I could put the application specific stuff that goes there (like the install folder, if the user decides to install in other than the default), the killer is the need to put the uninstall info in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall. For 32-bit stuff running on a 64-bit system, this is redirected to Wow6432Node. I don't see any way round this - is it in fact possible?
UAC registry redirection could reasonably be described as a "bad thing" because it is designed specifically to provide compatibility with improperly written software, i.e., software that assumes it is going to be run with administrator privilege.
WOW64 registry redirection is a different beast; it's designed to provide compatibility with properly written 32-bit software. If your software is 32-bit, and has no specific need to be 64-bit aware, there's nothing wrong with letting it run in the emulation environment as-is, including allowing registry settings to be redirected to Wow6432Node.
You can bypass WOW64 registry redirection if necessary, but you shouldn't do this arbitrarily, only if there is a specific reason. If WOW64 redirection worries you, the only good alternative is to provide a 64-bit version of your program.
This is a very "BAD THING" !
Microsoft solves a security problem by hiding thing at another place !
I've created a programm to ask the user for some additional parameters (language, directory for lessons) during installation of the app. I tested the programm profoundly, and the registry entries were made perfectly. However during setup the entries were hidden at some strange place!
If Microsoft wants to redirect these enties it should at least be some option to be set.
Never hide things, and think they will not notice, because it's transparant.
Doing this properly would involve an option to be set, so users are aware of the redirection !
my goal: to create a suite of scripts that do some common system tasks, which include these
copy/move/list/search/grep files
watch/start/stop processes
run queries against Oracle via sqlplus
i grew accustomed to using Cygwin/bash to ease my life at work, and frankly speaking, i don't want to move away from bash language and start learning PowerShell, for example - so i started searching for a way to run bash scripts on Windows, ... preferably something alternative to Cygwin.
the truth is that i am still not pleased with Cygwin installation, and the fact that there is no simple way around it, that it is targeting more or less expert users, and there are a number of things that might pop up during the installation. i mean. what i am trying to do now is to write a suite of scripts that will target someone less expert than me (and i am in no way a real expert) - in most cases some kind of an administrator who doesn't want to know the script details.
i am thinking that this user will also want to be able to run these scripts on another machine, and i want to be able to explain him/her how to do it, without just saying, call the support, and, me, eventually (so that we can install cygwin on another machine etc etc.)
i tried MinGW(msys) but it also needs manual steps to set things up - i mean, these manual steps have become something of a de facto standard in these Windows ports (sorry, maybe i have a mood for bragging). win-bash looked like it could be a solution, but i ended up trashing it too, because of the old bash version, and its inability to do things i was able to do in cygwin - specifically
here documents
things like "cmd /C dir *" (don't know why) - and yes, i do cmd /C dir in cases i am in some kind of shared network folder with thousands of files, and ls is significantly slower than dir
my questions at last:
am i doomed to use PowerShell? i guess i will, reluctantly, if i have to
is there a simple pre-packaged "slim" cygwin installation.. or, portable cygwin, even better? there is a cygwin-portable project on sourceforge, but it's not that doesn't need those manual steps, again, apparently - is there a way to automate those steps, perhaps? and if there is, i wonder why somebody hasn't done it already? - and then, would it be possible to call bash scripts from Windows command prompt using a simple command like "bash somescript.sh"?
thanks for your attention.
As mentioned here, the Cygwin installation can totally be scripted and parametrized to ran in a silently and automatic mode.
If you define the minimal list of cygwin packages you need, just use a little .bat script that call the cygmin setup executable like this
setup.exe --packages=list_of_packages_you_need --quiet-mode
If you wrap the cygwin install process, it should be tolerable for a less technical user.
The cygwin install can be streamlined using command-line args;
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00526.html
You can also automate the install of most cygwin packages through cyg-apt.
I haven't verified this but I suspect that msys implements a *nix look alike by creating windows executable versions of system commands. All of the common commands have an executable on my install of msys. If that is true then it should be possible to use them separate from a complete install.
Try copying "bash.exe", "cp.exe", etc. from the msys bin directory to a machine/vm that does not have an msys install and see if it works. You may need to copy some dll's or shared libraries as well. A windows dependency checker program would show which dll's an executable is using.
You could package up the stuff you use and make a simple installer or just copy the files with your scripts.
Take a look at MKS Toolkit. Unlike Cygwin, it can live within the Windows world. Files end in CR/LF like Windows files, and you don't have that /cygdrive/c stuff. Naked drive letters work fine in MKS Toolkit.
A few caveats:
I haven't used MKS Toolkit in a long time. See following reason.
MKS Toolkit is (sit down for this) $600 per license. Ouch! That's why I use Cygwin even though I don't think it's as good or works as well.
It's Kornshell based and not Bash (although this may be a bit different). Kornshell and BASH are 95% alike. However, that last 5% gets you. I actually like Kornshell better than BASH in many respects. Kornshell has the print statement which is way superior than the echo statement. Variable names don't disappear in blocks. You can easily do double loops because almost all the commands can take unit numbers of input and output. However, Kornshell doesn't have those neat escape characters in the prompt, and it's hard to find the exit status of a command in the middle of the pipeline.
To me its a no-brainer. The settings for my program go into the Windows Registry. After all, that's what it's for, isn't it?
But some programmers are still hesitant in using the Registry. They state that as it grows it slows down your computer. Or they state that it gets corrupted and causes your computer to malfunction.
So they write their own configuration files, or may use the INI files that Microsoft has depreciated since a few OS's ago.
From what I hear, the problems with the registry that occurred in early Windows OS's were mostly fixed as of Windows XP. It may be the plethora of companies that make Registry Cleaners that are keeping up the rumors that "registry bloat" and "orphaned entries" are still bad.
So I ask, is there any reason today not to use the Windows Registry to store my program configuration settings?
If the user does not allow registry access, you're screwed.
If the user reinstalls Windows and he wants to migrate his settings, it's much more complicated than with a simple file
Working with a config file means your app is portable
Much simpler for the user to change a setting manually
When you'll want to port your app to other OS, what are you gonna do with your registry settings ?
Windows Registry is bloated. Do you really want to contribute to this chaos?
For me, quickly installing, migrating and moving applications is a key point to productivity. I can't if I need to care of hundreds of possible registry keys. If there's a simple .ini or .cfg or .xml file somewhere in my user folder (or even the application directory if it is a portable app), migration is easy.
Often-heard argument pro registry: easy to write and read (assuming you're using plain WinAPI). Really? I consider the RegXXXfamily of functions pretty verbose ... too many function calls and typing work for storing just a few bits of information. So you always end up wrapping the registry away .. and now compare this effort with a simple text configuration file, maybe just key=value-like.
It depends, when you have small entries that need to read by multiple programs registry is ok, as database have locking issues, and config files are application based.
The problem happens when the user does not allow registry access, that are lots of software in the market that will show a pop up when anyone tries to modify registry and the user can cancel or allow the users. These programs are too common with the anti virus programs.
Putting your settings into the Registry means that if your user wants to move your program and its settings to another computer, he can't. Backup, ditto. Those settings are in a mysterious invisible place. I find this to be a hostile approach to one's users.
I've written numerous small-to-medium programs, and always used a .ini file. A tech-savy user can edit this file using an editor, he can check the settings in it, he can email it to a tech supporter, he can do a large variety of things that are significantly harder to do with registry entries.
And my programs don't contribute to slowing the computer down.
Personally speaking, I just don't like binary configuration of any type. I much prefer text file format which can be easily copied, edited, diffed & merged, and put under change control complete with history.
The last of these is the biggest reason not to use the registry - I can stick configuration files into SVN (or similar) with the full support given to text files, instead of having to treat it as a blob.
I don't really have much of an opinion for or against using the registry, but I'd like to note something... Many answers here indicate that registry access may be restricted for a certain user. I'd say the exact same thing goes for config files.
With registry you need to write to the "current user" to be fairly certain about having access (and should do so anyway, in many cases). Config files should be put in a user based area as well (e.g. AppData/Local) if you want "guaranteed" access without questions asked. As far as I know putting config files in "global" areas are as likely to yield access problems as the registry is.
I am trying to copy C source files from a vms alpha to a windows machine to allow easier editing of the code. (VMS editor is just a text editor and it would be nice to have syntax highlighting etc)
I can copy this across using Exceed FTP and this handles the issue of duplicate filenames with version suffix that vms has:
File.c;1
File.c;2
Flle.c;3
But when I open a file I've transferred, all the line breaks have been lost and the entire file is just one line.
Can anyone recommend a solution to this or offer any hints?
Thanks in advance
ps. I need to be able to copy the files back to vms and still maintain format.
It may be off interest by now, but in case you still wonder about "one-line" text files after FTP transfer.
The short answer: force the FTP transfer mode to ASCII (or text) in your FTP client. This will make sure that the C-files you transferring (in fac all files) are treated as text, otherwise they're assumed to be binary, so you get a byte-stream.
Long answer: There're 2 FTP transfer modes: ASCII/text and binary/image. The default is sometimes clent or server-specific.
Many clients have Auto-mode that interprets the file extension to set the proper transfer mode (.TXT,.CSV etc..)
When you access the VMS server via FTP client, too often the [Win-based] client is not VMS friendy, so it does not parse the file-list properly. Thus it gets confused by version number appended to the "usual" file-name:
filename.ext;ver ==> file.c;1
So instead of seeing .C (and assuming text), it sees .C;1 and thinks it's binary.
I use Filezilla FTP client to/from VMS and so far it does it properly (though version-support is not as I'd sometimes like).
Copying a file to and from your windows desktop every time you want to edit gets old very quickly.
You may be able to implement a much nicer alternative. There is some software under VMS that permits a VMS directory tree to be treated as a "network disk" under windows. Once you've set it up, and set up your windows to recognize the network disk, you can just open the file with a windows text editor without moving it from VMS to windows. You can also browse the directory tree, which appears like a tree of folders.
When you issue a save from your text editor, the saved copy supercedes the previous version over in VMS land. And it mediates correctly between RMS format and embedded newline format. It's a whole lot more convenient than FTP, for this purpose.
After doing a quick Google search, I think the name of the VMS software is PATHWORKS. But I'm not sure.
A few points I have on this
PATHWORKS is fairly old and (as far as I recall - I dont use it) doesnt work well with recent windows versions, such as supporting Active Directory. Within the last few years HP have ported SAMBA to VMS and this is the way to go if you want to make areas of disk visible to windows machines. Should be easyt to find on HP web site.
If you want to try the FTP/SFTP route I would try SFTP and go for VMS version of at least 8.2. TheTCPIP suite was rewritten (or reported from a Unix version) at this point.
VMS supports a number of formats for text files. As well as the complex record structure described above, there is STREAM_LF which is the same as a unix file and STREAM_CRLF
I found some interesting information about OpenVMS text file structure. That corresponds with a vague memory I have of how VMS handles text files; they're not stored as streams of bytes like Windows and Unix systems, but as a sequence of records (each record is a text line). Records can be either fixed width or variable width. Whatever reads the file is responsible for the "paper control", what we normally call newlines these days.
You might check the options in Exceed FTP to make sure that you're transferring the file in an appropriate ASCII mode. There might be special options you need to set on the FTP server to read and write the files in the appropriate mode too.
I'm no expert - let's get that out and in the open ;)
I have been having similar problems in FTPing files from OVMS Alphaserver to Win7 desktop so I can migrate to SQL.
FTP [Attachmate & WIn CLI] workled fine under WinNT.
I suspect Win7 does not like the name.ext;version format of the OVMS file.
Filezilla - doesn't work.
PuTTY - doesn't work
Window CLI FTP - doesn't work [partial file transfer; times out & truncates file].
Using Attachmate's "Reflections for the Web 2011" to emulate Vax terminal - works fine.
Think I'll have to go back to Attachmate for assistance but partially hamstrung by our [Australian Fed Govt] IT services which has the final say
Some editors, such as BBEdit on the Mac, support directly opening/saving files via FTP/SFTP/etc. (BBEdit also supports various different line endings as used on different platforms, which would help with your other problem). I expect there must be a Windows editor with similar functionality - my Windows-using colleagues all rave about something called CodeWrite (or CodeWright ?) so I guess I would take a look at something like that.