Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Microsoft PowerShell to make it into Longhorn Server, after all
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Microsoft's command-line scripting shell, originally code-named
>| "Monad," and known now as Windows PowerShell, is going to be
>| part of Longhorn Server, after all.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=352
>
> What happened to "we need to get rid of that expressive and powerful little
> tool"? Back to DOS days? Admission of mistake?
>
The time and effort which the Microsoft shills like Erik F and others
put into this area was beyond any reasonable measure. As I've said many
times over here, and even contributed some text to the Cola faq at some
point, before I later removed it, the cli does have a couple of
significant advantages, but *only* when you're running a system with a
loosely coupled design approach, and they are:
1. All commands are only 1 level deep (assuming you have standard paths
to binaries - Microsoft Windows does not)
2. Scripting is flexible, trivial and available to anyone; this means
that automation, the very function computers are supposed to provide, is
simple in linux/unix - in Windows, it's near impossible. Even the MS
"powershell" (what kind of marketing name is that?) is unlikely to come
close to the capabilities in Linux - Microsoft have more than a decade
of catching up to do.
3. If you can type, then you don't need the mouse at all any more,
although cutting/pasting between shells can be useful.
4. Because linux runs just fine /without/ a gui, you get precisely the
same CLI experience whether you're physically at the machine, dialled-in
using a modem, SSHed in over the net, accessed via X or a console, or
attached to a VT220 on the serial port. It's always the *same*.
Totally consistent. I can (and sometimes do) use an old sinclair z100
as a vt100 terminal - it might be ancient, but it works just as well as
anything modern, also, it's 4 AA batteries last for months at at time!
Would powershell persuade me to consider Windows? Well, the phrase "too
little, too late" springs to mind. Had Microsoft started this work
around WinNT3.1 time, then it might be up to the job by now. To imagine
that they have the quality of developers and resources to come close to
bash, perl, python, php, c-shell, korn, bwbasic (it works as a shell
quite well!), is just naive, or arrogant. Or maybe just plain
desperate.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
