“It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
gopher.quux.org
“It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#2And then microsoft's feelings were hurt so badly that one day they decided to write powershell.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#3I wish I saw that. That would've been epic.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#4And 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.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#5I 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 exist and as if MS holds the key to solving all problems. But MS does not offer solutions. They create problems (e.g., for anyone who has to deal with their licensing) and then offer "solutions" to the problems they created. It is like someone who proposes to "simplify" something by introducing more complexity.
The idea of MS embracing a proper shell seemed laughable to me. Windows users expect pointing and clicking (and today they want to be able to touch the screen).
Now fast forward to 2015 and it seems like PowerShell has a significant number of users. I am sure it is helping Windows users greatly. Good for them.
But I still think it is laughable. The name still makes me laugh.
I'd rather use something like Back Orifice (which has a simple UNIX client) to control Windows from a proper shell on a computer running UNIX. Or SSH via Cygwin. Or even SUA which has ksh and tcsh. Alas no simple Bourne shell (better for writing portable scripts).
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#6Seeing a link to a gopher:// site and discovering that Safari in iOS still supports it made my day.
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#71998
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#8Seeing 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.)
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#9Also covered by WikiWikiWeb: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KornShellStory
Re: “It's easier to port a shell than a shell script” (1998)
#10Seeing a link to a gopher:// site and discovering that Safari in iOS still supports it made my day.
I might be missing something; isn't the machine named gopher but it is using HTTP to access it on port 70?