Linked by fran on Sat 24th Dec 2011 10:08 UTC
Windows "The new Windows PowerShell is coming. Actually, Microsoft has just launched a Community Technology Preview of Windows PowerShell version 3, although the final version 3 probably won’t ship until it comes out with Windows 8. It also will be available for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. The CTP will install on those OSes."
Thread beginning with comment 501310
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Window shell width
by f0dder on Mon 26th Dec 2011 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Window shell width"
f0dder
Member since:
2009-08-05

"Only if your file manager of choice doesn't have decent pattern-based file selection :-)

Few do, however even if they all did, it still wouldn't help the 2nd scenario I gave about recursive changes cascading through file structure hierarchies
"A file manager like xplorer^2 lets you "flatten" a directory hierarchy, letting you achieve a lot of the stuff that usually takes recursive shell commands :-) - of course that means traversing (and keeping dirent info in memory for) the entire hierarchy, which isn't always a good idea; OTOH it gives you a nice visual overview of what is going to be affected.

Not trying to say that GUIs can do everything a CLI can do (or can always do it as efficiently), they each have their pros and cons - but sometimes it seems like the diehard CLI-only people simply haven't used a decent file manager :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Window shell width
by Laurence on Mon 26th Dec 2011 12:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Window shell width"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


A file manager like xplorer^2 lets you "flatten" a directory hierarchy, letting you achieve a lot of the stuff that usually takes recursive shell commands :-) - of course that means traversing (and keeping dirent info in memory for) the entire hierarchy, which isn't always a good idea; OTOH it gives you a nice visual overview of what is going to be affected.

Oh wow, that is impressive.
I would +1 for that alone if I still could.

Not trying to say that GUIs can do everything a CLI can do (or can always do it as efficiently), they each have their pros and cons - but sometimes it seems like the diehard CLI-only people simply haven't used a decent file manager :-)

I think there's a degree of a learning curve to take into account too: eg by the time I've installed and played with something like the above, I could have already done it via the CLI. That's not to say it would take me a time to learn the GUI - but when you already know how to do these commands by the CLI there's little motivation to learn another way.

I do use GUI file managers a lot too though. I say that because I really don't want to sound like a CLI fanboy. For dragging and dropping or selecting a random group of files/folders that don't have a regular pattern to match, using a GUI is often just more convenient.

Edited 2011-12-26 12:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Window shell width
by f0dder on Mon 26th Dec 2011 22:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Window shell width"
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

Something I find more comfortable in a GUI than on the CLI is if I need to navigate a lot back and forth in a directory hierarchy, especially when I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for. The visual overview tends to be slightly faster than a lot of cd and ls commands. And with two-pane navigation, copy and move are a single keystroke away ;)

Another useful feature is x^2's "mirror browsing" mode - very useful if you have two mostly identical directory hierarchies you want to examine, and a full visual diff isn't what you need.

I guess the determining factor, for me, is interactive vs. scriptable. If I'm poking around, I tend to prefer a GUI file manager (except if I'm poking around at log files, then a shell and tail tends to win ;) ), if I need to nuke a bunch of temporary files or move a predefined set of files from my server to my workstation, scp is often nicer than firing up a file browser and navigating to the relevant paths.

Reply Parent Score: 2