Linked by Adam S on Tue 8th Jul 2008 12:47 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y In 2006, Microsoft released Windows Powershell, a new command line shell that, via cmdlets, scripts, and executables, allow core system administration tasks to be scripted. While this functionality has been available on Unix-type systems for decades, Microsoft's version will almost certainly, within a few years, be available on several hundred million PCs. So how does the Powershell stack up against Linux favorite bash? MSDN links to this Bash vs Powershell article.
Thread beginning with comment 321986
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: cygwin
by BluenoseJake on Tue 8th Jul 2008 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cygwin"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

It works on every other version, that's just nickpicking, really. My point was that it runs on XP and 2003, as well as Vista and 2008

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: cygwin
by agrouf on Tue 8th Jul 2008 20:39 in reply to "RE[3]: cygwin"
agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Even so, why didn't they make it somewhat compatible with other shells? I mean all shells use special features, be it ksh, bash or zsh, but they all support plain sh. For instance, GNU autotools' configure script doesn't use extra features and it can run everywhere *except* Windows because ps doesn't support basic shell syntax! Did they really have to invent a new syntax for basic features to support the extra ones when others shells do not have to?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: cygwin
by BluenoseJake on Wed 9th Jul 2008 02:41 in reply to "RE[4]: cygwin"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I don't see why it had to be compatible with other shells, it doesn't run on a *nix and a lot of the underlying toolset is missing, grep, awk you name it. Also, they had a nice new powerful framework to base it on, with all the functionality a good shell needs.

If they had of tried to make it sh compatible, you would have ended up with a system that looks compatible, but would probably fail in such subtle ways as to make it incompatible, and super annoying.

If you really want or need to run a unix cli, why not run Linux or BSD? we need good interoperability between OSs, but not cli syntax compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: cygwin
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 8th Jul 2008 21:55 in reply to "RE[3]: cygwin"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

If your scripting language doesn't run *everywhere* then you are wasting your time (unless you a relatively small organisation, in which case any solution would work).

Any big organisation has a lot of all kinds of environments. Plus, whatever you are running on now is not what you'll be running on in the future, so why not future-proof yourself by choosing portable solutions. That is, something other than "fashion-of-the-day" PowerShell.

It makes better business sense to be portable unless you are a "ohh, look, shiny new features" kind-of-guy rather than someone who wants to get stuff done. Plus other (usually less talented) folks be need to be able to maintain your stuff otherwise you'll never be able to be promoted.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: cygwin
by BluenoseJake on Wed 9th Jul 2008 01:42 in reply to "RE[4]: cygwin"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"If your scripting language doesn't run *everywhere* then you are wasting your time (unless you a relatively small organisation, in which case any solution would work)."

I gotta disagree with you there, I can learn more than one scripting language, and there's lots of ways to move information between 2 different OSs. soap, rpc, email, ftp, sms, html, ODBC, blah blah blah. I'm more interested in capabilities and choice, not conformity.

Reply Parent Score: 2