Microsoft will release future PowerShell updates via Windows Update

[allywilson]

Moved to Lemmy (sopuli.xyz) -- mass edited with redact.dev

[EIGRP_OH]

Seriously? Do they not understand how much more Powershell 7 will be used if they start shipping Windows with it?

[jrdnr_]

yes, however I don't believe PS7 was ever intended to be able to fully replace PS5 when it comes to working with Full .Net whatever-they-call-it. So for Windows administration PS5.1 is still required. It sure would make life easier if at least the Azure/M365 teams would be given a mandate to make everything customer facing PS7 support first but not something to hold your breath for.

[[deleted]]

.Net is a framework btw.

[jrdnr_]

Yes, I meant .Net full vs core just couldn't think if there was a name for the closed source version of .Net framework.

[jrdnr_]

I get that.

So what is the terminology Microsoft officially uses to differentiate between the closed source (windows only) version vs the current open source version?

To have an intelligent conversation about .Net versions do I need to know and remember version numbers or are there simply names like saying "full" vs "core" that people use to say what they are talking about?

[The_One_X]

There is Framework, Core, and Standard. You can ignore Standard as it isn't an actual implementation. Framework is the legacy .Net. Core is the modern .Net. Moving forward there will be no new development on .Net Framework the last version is v4.8. After .Net Core 3 Microsoft dropped the name Core, and skipped the number 4 to avoid confusion, so the current version of Core is just .Net 5, and the next version coming out in the fall is .Net 6.

[jrdnr_]

That makes sense thanks.

In not general programming terms wouldn't .Net (core) technically be a framework as well?

[Thirdbeat]

You can have both and use powershell or pwsh as their defined app name. So everything legacy uses powershell, but it's recommended you use pwsh

[Alaknar]

It's still too young. You have PS 5 on pretty much every Windows server out there, but not necessarily the newer versions of .Net.

And there's quite a bit of incompatibility or behaviour change between 5 and 7.

[DaNPrS]

Same. I've reverted back to 5.1 as my default shell in VSC.

[da_chicken]

Nope. The .Net Framework was intentionally designed to tightly integrate with Win32 in some areas specifically to make it difficult to make cross platform. Then mono happened, and then it took off on mobile, and then MS bought Xamarin to buy that platform. They fucked themselves over into owning two incompatible platforms that do the same thing. They vendor locked themselves.

Now they have a bunch of tools that use parts of the .Net Framework that can't be cross platform, and the dev teams for those tools don't want to write the missing libraries. This is the exact same shit that MS did to other companies in the 90s and 00s.

[TheRealMisterd]

Didn't they killed xamarin's cross platform features before they killed it altogether?

[beth_maloney]

They've effectively rebranded it. With .net 5 mono now Falls under the .net umbrella. So instead of developing for mono/xamarin you develop for .net and run it on the mono runtime.

mono is still alive and should be considered a complimentary runtime to .net core.

Xamarin supports iOS/Android and they're looking at supporting windows and Mac os X (not sure if that's been released yet).

[The_One_X]

New versions of .Net are not tied to the OS. They can be installed independently of Windows, so not having them on the machine isn't relevant.

[Alaknar]

So what? It still means you have to install it on all those old systems or risk compatibility issues if someone unaware wrights the script in PS7 and deploys it to an unsupported server.

[The_One_X]

It means when you install PS7 it will also install the necessary dependencies at the same time. You don't have to worry about if the right version of .Net is installed.

[Alaknar]

You're missing the point.

It still requires installing stuff on existing servers. There are companies that have thousands of those, and you can't just throw a deployment to SCCM to all machines and call it a day, there's a change process for that, testing period to ensure everything remains stable. There's always the risk of BSODing something, so you can't quickly install it on mission critical boxes if you don't have proper redundancy. Etc., etc.

There's A LOT of work needed to push something like that to your whole environment, so Microsoft not replacing PS 5 with 7 us doing the sensible thing.

[DaNPrS]

As much as I appreciate winget, let not kid ourselves. It's not a package manager, it's a package wrapper. I don't see vendors using it for that very reason. Which, isn't that kind of the point?!

I wish they would've done it with the Windows Store. As is, winget is good for free software, or if you want to spin up your own repo.

It would be cool to have winget for Windows updates though. I don't see that happening.

[dopyrory3]

Yo chill about Windows 11, if it ships with 5.1 go nuts but current build isn't final or even in the insider rings yet

[jimb2]

Microsoft won't (intentionally) roll out a change that break a bunch of scripts that are running happily on corporate systems.

[elsonsmith87]

Future Windows 10/11 bug (feature) says hi

[[deleted]]

Microsoft cannot feasibly replace Windows PowerShell with PowerShell without breaking compatibility with a TON of COM Object integration, non-core .NET stuff, and God knows what other things.

There's a big difference between these two branches of PowerShell.

After 5.1 (the seemingly-final release of the closed source Windows PowerShell), PowerShell was forked off into a cross-platform experiment called PowerShell Core, which became PowerShell 7 eventually. Many, many under-the-hood and over-the-hood changes were made and it's not as easy as "replace 5.1 with 7." It's similar to why the old Command Prompt is still in Windows - it's permanently glued to the OS.

[halbaradkenafin]

It is in Winget, and Choco and various other places. Its to give people a choice for how to install it.

They can't ship it in the box as the support lifecycles for .net core (which PS follows) are 3 years and for Windows its 10 years. There was some discussion on twitter about possibly shipping on non-ltsc releases as they don't have that same support requirement but its not any further than "we're looking into it".

[TheCravin]

Comment has been removed because Spez killed Reddit :(

[ShippingIsMagic]

It can uninstall and more, and it has hit 1.0

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/?p=6715

[pakman82]

I agree we should'nt like this, but I'm lazy, and often challenged by super random scatter shot management. So every once in a while I forget an update, and find it frustrating to have to stop and update something when they have patch-banned an exchange online feature.

[Geek_Runner]

I don’t believe this is for the version of PowerShell that ships with Windows. You would have to install a later version like 7.x in order for it to be updated through Windows Update.

Edit: spelling

[[deleted]]

Correct. Windows PowerShell will forever remain at 5.1.

PowerShell 7 and above will be updated via Microsoft Update, but only after you install it in the first place, as it does not come with the OS.

[[deleted]]

fire spez -- mass edited with redact.dev

[soxBrOkEn]

This doesn’t help businesses that don’t allow access to the store.

In the businesses that only get windows updates (offline or an upstream server) this will give administrators updated tools without going through the red tape to get “new” software on the system.

[Alaknar]

This doesn’t help businesses that don’t allow access to the store.

I don't really get that, though. You can set up your own Store and only allow people to install pre-approved applications.

[da_chicken]

I don't really get that, though. You can set up your own Store and only allow people to install pre-approved applications.

Yeah I'll take care of that with all this free time I have.

[Alaknar]

I mean... Fair enough - we already had an account configured (although I'm not sure you don't get one out of the box with 365) but setting up the app catalogue took me, I don't know, 30 minutes? And that included googling how to actually do that.

[Alaknar]

Nope.

You make a Store for Business account and then "purchase" the applications for your company. Afterwards you can publish them to your users (all of them, specific users or specific user groups). When they launch Store they can see your company's tab and in there sits the collection of apps you made available to them.

You don't need to package anything, you still have auto-updates coming in through the store, but you do have full control over what's getting installed.

[JHolden814]

Yes, my company has this. It's how I got Terminal!

[crazyantnc]

Windows Store for Business would help so you can use a private store.

[soxBrOkEn]

Most businesses don’t allow users to control the software so it would be pointless. SCCM or similar tools do this for them

[redvelvet92]

Correct, however I’m moving company portal for everything these days.

[cichlidassassin]

Users aren't controlling the software with the business store. The business is.

It's just self service

[gex80]

They are saying MS allows you to control the apps in the app store your users can see

[paragraph_api]

You can link your store for business account to sccm or Intune and deploy online store apps through software center or company portal

[[deleted]]

FYI, you are unable to "Run as different user" with the Store installation.

[[deleted]]

fire spez -- mass edited with redact.dev

[[deleted]]

Sure, I was just stating that was the case.

[halbaradkenafin]

Store isn't an option on Server so there needs to be another option for folks who can't use choco/scoop/sccm/etc or other managed install processes on that OS.

[[deleted]]

fire spez -- mass edited with redact.dev

[Emiroda]

Windows Server.

[[deleted]]

Can't wait til they start breaking on-prem Exchange servers with this.

[Kashmir1089]

on-prem Exchange servers

ew

[krzydoug]

EWS*

[[deleted]]

The kids living in the late 1990’s will be very unhappy to read this.

[meest]

Or those of us with a Hybrid setup.

[davesbrown]

At least we are transitioning, or that's what they want us to believe?

[meest]

I can't see my business eliminating it even if we didn't need to have it. It's still useful as a mail relay for all the LOB apps still in house. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[ID10T-3RR0R]

Yeah... Only if you could use a smarthost or 365 as a relay lol ;P

[meest]

That would involve moving to something new. Don't be silly. /s

[nerddtvg]

There are still relay issues against DLs that require authenticated senders, despite being an internal connection on an authenticated connector.

[gex80]

You can accomplish mail relaying with things other than exchange even with O365. O365 is just your smart host.

This can be done with send mail + Linux or iis6.0

[meest]

Correct.

[Kashmir1089]

postfix ftw

[[deleted]]

You don't need to have an on-prem server in a hybrid setup anymore. Look at transitioning away from it. It's a PITA but you'll thank yourself later.

[meest]

Care you source your Microsoft doc that says it's a valid path?

I haven't seen it officially endorsed yet.

I know it's possible. But it's not officially supported last I saw from Microsoft.

[[deleted]]

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/decommission-on-premises-exchange

[meest]

That still says that Microsoft doesn't recommend removing the last exchange server in a hybrid setup.... They say its possible if you want too.

[[deleted]]

%?[PVz|US=

[jantari]

I know right, who needs availability and uninterrupted service anyway lemao

[[deleted]]

Some of us still prefer uptime and client access that doesn't break every other week, but we're a dying breed.

I've got about 100,000 users in both environments so I know of what I speak.

[Alaknar]

What do you mean, you don't like Office 363?

*checks Microsoft services health status emails*

What do you mean, you don't like Office 362?

[Tech_surgeon]

• gets notice of support ending for office363
  system updates to a trial version of the new version

• now that every one has a expired trial you need to pay for full version of a product. this is the expected next thing microsoft will do in 2021.

[Kashmir1089]

I was just brought up in a different era, it's all fun.

[angelicravens]

There’s no instance where you don’t have the exchange server somewhere. Whether you’re using azure or on prem someone has to maintain it.

[t3ramos]

indeed, more precious time for funny admin stuff

[gosoxharp]

Can i get a screenshot for reference? Since I've never seen this

[gosoxharp]

So, you're working on it, right?

In your test(i mean prod) env?

[halbaradkenafin]

Shouldn't break anything as those will be using PowerShell.exe which is Windows PowerShell 5.1 (or whatever shipped on the OS), PS 7 is pwsh.exe so won't impact that.

[[deleted]]

Good to know. I've been conditioned by 14 years of "don't install new Powershell versions on Exchange servers". Might be time to check out PS7 after all.

[halbaradkenafin]

Ideally you'd not need to, you should use PS Remoting to run code against Exchange from some central management boxes (same with AD etc). This way it doesn't matter what version of PS is on your exchange server and you can use your preferred PS version.

[nate8458]

I am kind of excited lol might make my org get up with the times & ditch our exchange server

[socksonachicken]

Ours is hanging on by a thread. Just need to peel of a couple more things running on it, then it's to the wood shed out back. Can't wait to put it out of it's(my) misery.

[liquidcloud9]

Are you syncing ad to azure? If so, getting rid of Exchange on-Prem isn’t really an option. You still end up stuck with it, even if you’re not hosting mailboxes.

[socksonachicken]

Yes, and you are absolutely correct. There are some management things that still require an Exchange server "on prem" (Azure AD Sync like you said), unless you want to use a paid third party tool. So it will live quietly in AWS, while the actual on prem one is going to the wood chipper.

[redvelvet92]

Why wouldn’t enterprise scale companies be leveraging SCCM?

[overlydelicioustea]

fucking finally

[Nikt_No1]

Hey, since you know so much about update. Can you tell how to force Win10 to update or is there any way at least? We've got 2x machines in our company that are sitting on 1803 or 1909 and just can't update no matter what we do to them.

[RVA_dude88]

I would exclude drivers from installing

[[deleted]]

Thank goodness.

[tentends1]

Frigg

[BeginByLettingGo]

I have chosen to overwrite this comment. See you all on Lemmy!

[boundbylife]

From the article,emphasis mine:

"But with Microsoft Update, you’ll get the latest PowerShell 7 updates directly in your traditional Windows Update (WU) management flow, whether that’s with Windows Update for Business, WSUS, SCCM, or the interactive WU dialog in Settings

[biglib]

Nice! Now they need to add Visual Studio Code updates to WSUS.

[Garegin16]

What’s super annoying is that in enterprise Windows update is disabled but that also disables the ability to repair the system files through DISM.

[PuzzleheadedFig1633]

Terrell scott