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 322062
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: cygwin
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 9th Jul 2008 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: cygwin"
Member since:

"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.

Be a special snowflake, no one asked you to conform. That is not what was being discussed.

In fact, I wasn't talking about what *you* or *I* might like personally. It isn't "all about you". I'm sure you are very capable of learning many scripting languages. The point was that if you had to pick a single scripting language that less-capable 9-to-5ers had to be trained in (as part of their job, and yes the world is full of these people, and surprisingly enough they do have to do scripting from time to time). It would also have to work everywhere since the biggest environments (banks, government ministries, the military) have all sorts of platforms (usually mainframes and proprietary Unix as it turns out). Then the rational choice is not PowerShell.

So yes, we understand that you personally like PowerShell. However, just because it works for your (possibly small-to-medium) problems doesn't mean that works for everyone and everywhere. Other scripting languages will work everywhere, which makes them far more useful than PowerShell. Sure they don't have the easy Windows integration that PowerShell does, but they can still get the job done (on all platforms). Do you now understand why PowerShell isn't the number one recommendation for general use by many people, since I don't wish to labour the point further?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: cygwin
by BluenoseJake on Wed 9th Jul 2008 11:31 in reply to "RE[6]: cygwin"
BluenoseJake Member since:

Do you now understand why PowerShell isn't the number one recommendation for general use by many people, since I don't wish to labour the point further?

No. I do not understand, as for the first time in 20 years, Windows has a properly supported, properly scriptable command line, from MS. There was no need to make it sh compatible, as if you need sh, use a *NIX. or use some other scripting language on Windows. You have that choice.

You do not have to make Windows become Linux for it to be improved. Sometimes I think people will always complain, no matter what comes along. People complain that Windows doesn't have a proper command line, It finally gets one, and now some complain that it isn't sh compatible. Tough. Windows is not Unix, it's not Linux, and it ain't OS X. If you need Unix, USE IT.

Finally, the university I work at has 15,000 students and around 3000 staff and faculty. We are not a small institution. My problems are not "small to medium" and we do not have "(possibly small-to-medium) problems". We have a very heterogeneous environment, and I have never seen the need for such a level of compatibility, as it's important to be able to exchange data between systems, but mostly, our *nix admins run *nix boxes, and our Windows Admins run Windows boxes, and most times, that's the way it is at most large shops.

You don't have Windows Admins running *nix, it's not what they were hired to do. So your level of compatibility is not needed, and I don't think it is much wanted either. It's these smaller shops you talk about that have people wearing more than one hat, and then, a lot of times, those environments are more homogeneous, and so a compatible scripting environment isn't needed.

So please, don't labour the point any more, because it doesn't hold up. I understand you personally don't like powershell, but grasping at such a weak straw to find something to complain about? Not very helpful, or useful.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: cygwin
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 9th Jul 2008 20:05 in reply to "RE[7]: cygwin"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:

We are not a small institution.

Point noted - but your institution is still a relative minnow. You mentioned that your university has a mixture of environments. Why create artificial silos when you don't have to? Find common tools that will break down the barriers to make everyone's life easier, not only your own. It is a common failing of sysadmins (and computer scientists in general) to make life more complicated than it needs to be for the sake of a few shiny features. Microsoft believe that adding new features at the expense of dividing the market will work for them in the long term. They are wrong.

Be warned now that your scripts will probably break when newer version of Windows comes out (usually subtly). It is an unfortunate consequence of Microsoft's business model. At least it will keep you in employment as you spend your life maintaining your PowerShell scripts. Meanwhile, *sh* compatible scripts will keep working for the next few decades and we'll get one with doing more productive things.

Reply Parent Score: 1