Re: [psh] Upgrade blues

In message <eiysFqgbGHA.536@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Lee Holmes [MSFT]" <lee.holmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
2. The install experience sucks. The product is practically unusable out
of the box and simple things like $profile are not created properly.

Have you tried the new Set-ExecutionPolicy cmdlet?

No. I used regedit.exe to fix it before I started. Or tried to!

I installed RC1 and once I got into it, the file itself and some of the folders do not exist.

We've tried to make it
as easy as possible for users to customize the shell to suit their tastes.

Then why is it so hard to get into? This stuff should be fixed in the installer. I should be able to install this product, via unattended means and have it work the way I want to.

I can understand and accept the amount of updating RC1 brings (most of my bigger scripts broke). But this added security is just plain brain dead. It does not help. Just like UAC in Vista - this stuff makes you guys look silly preferring security to user experience in such a way.

Could you describe a little more about $profile not being created properly?

If I try to edit the $profile file (Notepad $profile) I get errors.

4. Finally - what definition of 'Unrestricted' is Microsoft using? When I
say unrestricted, that's what I mean. No restrictions, nothing to stop me
from doing things, no barriers, no dead-end streets,etc.

Our take is that Unrestricted means, "No further restrictions than what
Windows provides."

Ahh - yet another team at MS trying to bend the English language.

When I say "UNRESTRICRED" I sure don't mean "no additional restrictinon" I mean no restrictions at all. None of any kind. Zip. Nada. Zilch. "Do you want to run" messages are not wanted.

Is there a chance to have a "I realliy really really do not want to be asked" option??

Recognizing executable content downloaded from a remote
source is a core part of Windows now -- it would be lax to regress in this
respect.

A mapped drive is NOT the Internet! I do not want to have to type "r" each time I run a script off of a network share. This is stupid security, not helpful security. It should be fixed by Execution Policy.

So what do I get - a freaking nanny asking me every time if it's ok to run
a script from my X: drive (on my other server). Hint: net use drives are
NOT the Internet (well not always). What a lousy "security feature".
:-((((

This is not a security feature. We do not consider files located on
intranet shares to be remote. Are you perhaps running IE 7 in the mode that
disables the Intranet zone? We ultimately rely on that infrastructure to
determine if a file is remote or not. Or alternately, were the files on the
remote share downloaded from the Internet perhaps?

All I know is that after installing PowerShell RC1 I get this silly behaviour. It did not happen earlier - and I only saw it with PSRC1.

Thomas

--
Thomas Lee
doctordns@xxxxxxxxx
MVP - Admin Frameworks and Security
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mac OS X Security - Not Quite as Strong as you Thought
    ... These do not use the installer. ... That's probably why the majority went windows early on. ... .NET was to provide wrappers around code that code get hacked or compromised to help plug up some of their security holes. ... M$ track record even for the NT line wasn't all that good compared to any Unix. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac OS X Security - Not Quite as Strong as you Thought
    ... The installer would then be a real installer for ... better to IMPROVE Mac OS X security? ... The last thing I want is an Apple ... Trying to build a troll around the notion that Apple isn't security ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac OS X Security - Not Quite as Strong as you Thought
    ... The installer would then be a real installer for ... better to IMPROVE Mac OS X security? ... The last thing I want is an Apple ... Programming is so horribly complicated at this point in time that it is ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac OS X Security - Not Quite as Strong as you Thought
    ... It bypasses authorization services and executes parts of ... installer packages as root. ... It seems like Apple has created a security hole. ... installer. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: 5.3-RC1 unresponsive *after* a cpu-hog job is over?
    ... >> I think a fix for this was merged after RC1. ... Can you update and retry? ... One of the niceties of this installer is that you can pilot it from ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)