does StartSSL require installing a Certificate Authority in the browser, or does it work out of the box?
Here's a sample cert: https://mike-burns.com/
is that a free cert install?
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom#Trustworthiness
StartCom :: StartCom is a company based in Eilat, Israel that has three main activities: StartCom Linux Enterprise (Linux distribution), StartSSL (certificate authority) and MediaHost (web hosting).      StartSSL  StartCom offers the free (for personal use) Class 1 X.509 SSL certificate "StartSSL Free", which works for webservers (SSL/TLS) as well as for E-mail encryption (S/MIME). It also offers Class 2 and 3 certificates as well...
I don't like StartSSL's policy of giving away free certs but then charging for revoking them if/when you need to, and not being flexible about that during Heartbleed. Lets Encrypt is very nice, I'm using it for a test domain and it all just works
exactly, I'd prefer paying $10-15/year for e.g. rapidssl than $25 fee for revocation
mike-burns: I prefer StartSSL over LE because they're established, trusted (in the CA sense), and don't require me to jump through hoops (server-side scripts or modules for "automatic" renewals) Given that the CA trust model (and/or users) is fundamentally weak, I feel that $0 and replacing (not revoking) is reasonable, at least for my purposes.
mnathani2_: You might be thinking of cacert.org who also gave out free certificates, but last I checked required you to install their CA as most bundles didn't include them.
I can get behind that. I'm waiting for a non-annoying/non-invasive LE script -- nothing user-friendly, nothing that assumes I have no idea what TLS is.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/ubuntus-bash-and-linux-command-line-coming-to-windows-10/
Ars Technica: "Ubuntu’s bash and Linux command line coming to Windows 10"
i always liked it how OS X had zsh
I'm annoyed at the fanfare over bash, as though bash were all *that* great, or even the only thing out there.
I'm most surprised about the licensing aspects.
openbsd just dropped linux support
OpenBSD abandoned Linux support awhile ago. This was just the final flush.
if windows could run linux gui stuff as well as command line stuff would that way many people to try linux in windows, or to just use windows/linux rather than linux
Then they could announce Microsoft Xenix 3.0.
Heh
I am not against the idea of Microsoft UNIX
[again]
Too many people think Linux is all there is and Solaris has gone away
RIP Solaris and your sad excuse for /bin/sh.
I used zsh
And gcc
Open Indiana is around but it is all fragmented now
We still read from it at my code reading group.
Sometimes an ex-Sun employee shows up and gives historical trivia.
Cool
I struggle enough reading openbsd source
You should join a code reading group!
I wish Microsoft would explain how they're planning on doing this
Are they online?
http://www.meetup.com/The-Classical-Code-Reading-Group-of-Stockholm/events/229123954/ - no, they're in person.
Mkb like how openbsd does it I suspect
Kernel support for other binaries and a base installation
openbsd doesn't anymore iirc
but syscall emulation isn't so easy from windows where the kernel is completely different
it's possible of course
Openbsd still does free BSD afaik
and posix subsystems running on NT are nothing new
Which non-POSIX Linux syscall is especially tricky?
they'd need an X server
People have been running X, cygwin, etc., for years on Windows.
cygwin was  terrible when i tried it
It was better than cmd.exe.
i'm not sure about X servers, i didn't have a lot of luck
cygwin is hardly linux though
they said 'ubuntu on windows' not some sort of POSIX subsystem just like all the others
well openbsd had redhat
who knows. they may just mean ubuntu the trademark rather than ubuntu the operating system
Heh.
it probably just means ubuntu package system etc.
well i for one am curious to see it :)
It's going to look like Ubuntu.
it is like openbsd
or rather solaris branded zones since they're more featureful
apparently these are "cmd.exe consoles"
I'm not entirely sure what that means, since it's supposed to be bash not cmd
I think it means they're windows consoles, which are very different from the usual unix terminals
They're not terminal emulators?
I admit, I know basically nothing about Windows.
there's no stream (such as would go over a serial port)
it's not some program emulating cursor addressing commands of some hardware but its own stream
s/stream/thing/
<mkb> it's not some program emulating cursor addressing commands of some hardware but its own thing
which is why so much doesn't work the same
mkb: MS haven't published how the ubuntu-on-windows works, but one of the Canonical guys doing it has a blog: http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/03/ubuntu-on-windows.html