Which is why I queried the exact interpretaion of 'not included' in a distro.
I use telnet because its simply less hassle to set up than anything else inside a secure network.
But its been an 'optional extra' for years.
ssh is the default more or less.
-- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ? Erwin Knoll
It's installed in Slackware, by default. Jes not enabled. Gotta delete a single commented line in the /etc/inetd.conf file. A real toughie. ;)
nb
...
While telnet is not secure it is fine for use at home. The use of telnet and Samba have some distinct advantages when run from Windows to access the Pi or another Unix system:
wordpad makefile
That will load and edit a makefile on the Pi. Of course, this works also for any other type of text file such as source files. One downside of this specific example is that Wordpad adds CR_LF line endings but they do not normally affect development tools, they can be removed, and other Windows editors can be used instead, as can any appropriate Windows command such as dir, del, ren, type, find etc.
I might be wrong but the last time I looked at FTP and SFTP programs they had their own custom file tree displays and made it obvious that files had to be transferred as separate operations to editing them.
James
With Samba you don't even need to "move" the files. You just use them!
James
That's no different from ssh, though the PuTTY fonts may be a bit different.
IIRC Samba works best when the master filestore on on the Linux side and you're pulling files onto the Windows system to work with them. Its a permissions thing. Windows generally doesn't care about file permissions, but Linux does, so I'd expect problems a command shell running on Linux tries to execute a binary (or script) thats on a Windows system and accessed via Samba. I could be wrong but I think the shell will complain that the execute flags aren't set.
Might work, might not. Some programs, especially 'make' are quite picky about formatting characters: it doesn't like spaces where its expecting a TAB but I haven't tried it with non-native newlines.
Of course. Transferring files is what they do.
Personally, I like to keep at least two copies of any file I've put time and effort into making, preferably on different boxes and backed up to offline disks. I generally use either a version control system for that (cvs or git - git is available for most OSen, dunno about cvs on Windows) and rsync for file systems, though again I don't know if there's a Windows version. However thois is the diametric opposit of the way you want to use Samba, so probably ymdv.
-- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
IIRC PuTTY treats the clipboard a bit oddly. Is it PuTTY that copies to the clipboard anything which is just highlighted? And doesn't PuTTY use line-by-line copying rather than the command prompt's 'truncated rectangular' copy?
FWICR PuTTY has a tabbed interface for multiple windows which I personally don't like too much as I work with the keyboard more than the mouse and prefer to use Alt-Tab to switch between recent windows.
Whether that last point of mine about PuTTY is right or not, using as many command windows (having telnet sessions in them) as desired makes working with the remote Unix system just like working locally.
I did one find a command line ssh client for Windows. For me, that was as good as telnet as it kept one Unix command prompt in each command window.
Of course, these are just personal preferences. YMMV.
That could well be right. I only ever use the Unix box as the server.
Yes, make requires one or more tabs prior to the command lines but the ones I have used accept either type of line ending.
Our preferences are maybe not so far apart. I like Samba because it allows the Pi or other remote box appear to be a local drive and allows me to see and edit the remote files as if they were local. No copy-edit-save-copyback process. Just edit-save with any Windows app.
However, I agree about having multiple copies. As I keep almost all data files on the Unix/Linux server I use rsync to back them up. As rsync only copies differences it normally completes the backup of hundreds of megabytes in about 5 mins! I hadn't considered using version control like git for general files. That's something I'll have a think about.
By the way, Unix seems far more dependable that Windows. For example, I have an electricity monitor attached to my main desktop PC and it writes its data to a local file. I set up a Windows job to copy that file each night to the Unix server and it initially ran reliably but over time it became unreliable. Windows sometimes runs it and sometimes doesn't. In fact, it seems to just stop running it sometimes for weeks, with no explanation in any of the Windows logs. When I run the job manually it always works. By contrast, I think everything I have ever set up on Linux just works or you can see in the log what went wrong.
James
Pass. I last used it a very long time ago: by about 2003 I was no longer using Windows for anything except a few legacy apps: with everything on Linux I just didn't need to use PuTTY any more, so I just don't remember if it did anything odd when copying stuff from its screen. In any case I'd pretty much expect it to do line-oriented copying since that's the norm for a *nix console, which the type of display it is implementing and rectangulat multi-line copies would make an unholy mess if you tried to do a copy&paste within the console window - something that we do all the time because its so useful. Similarly, I'd expect a double click to highlight a whole word.
It didn't have multiple windows, tabbed or not, when I last used it.
But Windows still doesn't support multiple desktops: I'd be lost without that. My default setup is to have four desktops, switchable via a applet on the toolbar, and as many windows as I need in each of them. Its really useful to devote each desktop to a different task, e.g. mail, Firefox, the Java standard class documentation and the my programming environment.
Same here: at work we typically used Windows PCs as smart terminals, normally running one of the professional X-terminal packages such as eXceed and with all development work on the server.
Now I do something similar: since all flavours of *nix are network nodes, I can sit in front of anything in the house and do stuff on any of the others (or even on the local box). Hence plugging my RPi onto the 'net and running it as a headless server was a no-brainer.
I've been using CVS for years, mainly because I first met it at work, back when it and its forks were about the best there was. I've stayed with it because its filing system is very simple and any problems can be fixed by a bit of simple hackery, changing permissions, etc. I'm currently trying git on one project to see how I get on with it.
All development stuff I do gets version control applied to it, partly as protection against disk death but mainly as fat-finger protection and because the fastest way to back out stupidity is the delete the file(s) and recover the previous version from version control. I also use it for web pages/images/documents on my house server's Apache but not, oddly enough, for those published via my ISP's website.
I don't think I've ever tried scheduling tasks on desktop Windows, so can't comment about that except to say that even Windows Server seems deficient in that department: the idea of scheduling a weekly task to kick off an action on a Windows webserver rather than relying on somebody remembering to login and run it every Friday to seems to be a totally alien idea.
However, in the Linux/Unix environment I've never had crond fail to run scheduled jobs. Even if the system has been down or suspended at the scheduled time atd has always swept up the missed jobs and run them after the system has come out of suspension or been rebooted. Yes, even this laptop has its own collection of cron jobs.
-- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
I found this cron clone made the last few years of regular Windows use more bearable (the free version was sufficient for my purposes). The way it's structured makes it relatively easy to write self-modifying cron jobs, whether that's good or not depends on the user, of course.
Me too. I recently developed a load of utility stuff using cron jobs on a Debian laptop which I later moved to a Raspbian Pi which now serves as a kind of data mine, processor and server. Ah, the joy of using such compatible systems was quite something after the Windows years. :-)
PuTTY attempts to emulate the copy/paste behaviour of typical Unix desktop environments, rather than the Windows way of doing it.
Probably the programmer was a user of those desktop environments and was (like me) annoyed by the way it works in Windows. It happens very often when I work on Windows that I select some text, then paste it somewhere else only to realize that I forgot to do a "copy" action. The Unix way requires less mouse action.
+1
PuTTY does it the *nix way. Highlight and it is in the copy buffer, no need to actually press ctrl-c or right-click and selecy copy to copy it. Makes it easy moving between Windows and *nix.
It does and it has for some time (W7 or before), it's just a completely pathetic implementation that doesn't support the taskbar correctly on all workspaces, and doesn't support moving windows between workspaces. That's why nobody has bothered telling you it's there!
It isn't! It works extremely well - how do you think those dozens of applications manage to check for updates and nag you to upgrade on a regular basis? It's all there in the scheduler.
---druck
...
...
This is not overly important but on Windows I personally use the mouse surprisingly little and do a lot with just the keyboard. I find it usually to be faster.
The Windows (at least XP) GUI is quick to control from the keyboard without reaching for the mouse. To pick a case in point, I normally have the command prompts set to 9999 lines so they keep plenty of scrollback info and then, whether using telnet or not, to copy the whole buffer into a Notepad window can be done with keystrokes as follows.
Alt-Space, E, S, Enter (copies the whole buffer) Start, Q, N, Control-V (starts notepad (on my PC) and pastes)
To explain it I had to go and do a real copy but it is something I normally do without thinking and the whole thing, including starting a new notepad instance, probably takes a little under a second.
I prefer Unix for most things but do like the Windows XP GUI and find it more productive, especially using the keyboard for most things and the mouse only when needed. Going back to the original topic, using telnet and Samba tends to give me the best of both worlds: a Windows GUI front end and a real computing environment underneath.
Maybe there is a Unix GUI that's as usable from the keyboard but I haven't found it yet.
James
Ok maybe you can care to tell us about it? Or do you refer to those 3rd party add-ons that have been available for some time, often as give-away with videocard support software?
Well that is not the same thing. In Windows Server 2003 and before, it was possible to start a GUI program from the scheduler, and when its time to run came by and the console was logged on, the program would just open on the console and do its thing (visible). That could be surprising when you were working on the console at that time.
In later versions this no longer works and those programs usually refuse to run from the scheduler. You will need to adapt them so they don't use a GUI or remain in the toolbar. Just like those update checkers do.
Not my typical usage. What I often want to do is copy part of a previous command that is still on the screen (e.g. a long filename that has been part of a previous command and that I need again in a new command) and immediately paste it back into the same window, or copy an entire command to paste it into another window that connects to another system.
For that, the "just select to copy" and "just click to paste" is much more convenient than the windows way.
??? you probably need to look closer most Linux GUI's i have seen have plenty of options for keyboard short- cuts, I mainly use XFCE & LDXE both of which have excellent keyboard short cut support & have not succumbed to the current trend to believe everything is a tablet.
if you really want to ditch the mouse you could try rat-poison :-)
-- The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. -- F. Dostoyevski
...
A minor point but Windows only requires one extra click! (The right click to copy.) I can see the Unix way is more convenient but it could be argued that it is possible to overstate the case.... ;-)
James
3 extra clicks! The right-click to open the context menu to select copy from, then the click on copy, then a right-click at the destination to again open the context menu, and finally a click to paste it (which is required in Unix as well, there it usually is a middle click).
On 16 Apr 2015 12:08:51 GMT, Rob declaimed the following:
Ever try enabling Quick Edit mode then? No context menu -- highlight text, right click to copy; move cursor to destination, right click to paste.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
Now you are talking about a CMD window. I am talking about generic windows with text pane, where it works as I described. In case of the command window without quick edit mode it is even worse, because there you have to first right-click and select "mark" before you can even highlight the text.
No, it's built in and has been since XP. That came with a Power Toy to enable it, but on W7 and W8, you have to bugger about a bit. Google for Virtual Desktops on Windows to find out how. Prepared to be disappointed though.
---druck
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.