And then microsoft's feelings were hurt so badly that one day they decided to write powershell.
Somehow I doubt it took them more than 8 years to write Powershell.
Maybe not, but it does take me 8 hours to get a Powershell script right.
“It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#12Seeing a link to a gopher:// site and discovering that Safari in iOS still supports it made my day.
Alas, it's not a gopher:// link; gopher is just the name of the host. (Perhaps it also is a gopher server, or once was.)
It's running pygopherd
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#13I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
Rumor has it, that a somewhat big bank, somewhere in Europe used batch files to drive it's business back in the day...
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#14I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#15I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
It's petty but I can't get over the case sensitive command names with capital letters in it.
They are honestly too long.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#16I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
It might be better than Bourne or C-derived shells, but I have a hard time conceding it beats for instance Inferno shell, es or rc.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#17I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
Better than Unix tools may be debatable. (Syntax for basic file operations is a bit verbose) But it's definitely better integrated into overall system administration than any shell available on Unix.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#18Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
It might be better than Bourne or C-derived shells, but I have a hard time conceding it beats for instance Inferno shell, es or rc.
I know enough and have had enough tangential contact with PowerShell to know that it works on a fundamentally different paradigm, as it does not pipe text, but objects. As such, it's hard to say it's "better" since it's so different. I would hazard that it's better some respects for some things, and the reverse is true as well. It fits well into windows, but would not fit well into UNIX systems, where most things are already just text.
I haven't used inforno-shell, es or rc, so can't comment on them directly. That said, if they are easily comparable to bash, ksh, etc, then you probably owe it to yourself to see what powershell is about and why it's fundamentally different.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#20I thought this was quite amusing when I read it back in the late 90's. At one point their proposed shell was called "Monad". I wondered "Why do they want to do this?" I have gone to a number of conferences with MS employees over the years, especially MS lawyers, and with respect to software, they often seem like they have been indoctrinated into a cult. As if the existence of software outside of MS Windows does not e…
You should try powershell. It's actually pretty good and is much better than unix shells.
It has it's pros and cons, but in the end it's fundamentally different. Powershell wouldn't work nearly as well on a UNIX system, where much of the tooling is already just text, provided by many different sources, and uses a much more diverse set of utilities. Text makes a good lowest common denominator in that situation.