Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 24th Oct 2005 04:14 UTC, submitted by Eric
Windows Ars Technica has posted a lengthy article on the new promising Microsoft Command Shell. It looks at MSH from the point of view of both coders and Windows admins.
Thread beginning with comment 50466
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
from when ...
by on Mon 24th Oct 2005 08:49 UTC

Member since:

... bash is "standard command shell" ?

Reply Score: 0

RE: from when ...
by diegocg on Mon 24th Oct 2005 09:54 in reply to "from when ..."
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

A sh-like command line interpreter is required for POSIX-compliance, I think. See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/


Not that it matters - it only matters if its good, there's no point of using a "standard" if the standard is old and not so great as other alternatives (like bash vs msh)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: from when ...
by on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:26 in reply to "from when ..."
Member since:

bash is a standard command shell since the day it could execute a script compatible with sh (which usually means compatible with Korn Shell), when you call it with the name 'sh'.
A shell must be standard to be useful. That's thanks to this that autotools can work on any POSIX system for example. More important, that's thanks to this that Unix boot scripts are so easily adaptable between Unixes.
All this to say that another shell incompatible with the standard can't be compared to the others, as it lacks one of the major feature of shells.
Worse, the MSH is full of customizable stuff and can access lots of API of lower levels than itself. For a shell, this is IMHO a recipe for disaster, even/specially for scripters. I think the disaster of csh shells is bound to repeat itself in MSH.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: from when ...
by diegocg on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:50 in reply to "RE: from when ..."
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

"A shell must be standard to be useful"

Sorry, but that's not true. Standars are nice but a good shell is a GOOD shell regardless of being standard or not. Also, the sh "standard" was not "created", when sh was born there was not "standard". There's no technical reason why MSH can't become a new "standard"


Plus, there're tons of linux shells that won't work in BSDs or even between distributions. How useful are standars when you can't use your script in two different computers, which is one of the objectives of being a standard?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: from when ...
by on Mon 24th Oct 2005 14:34 in reply to "RE: from when ..."
Member since:

"Worse, the MSH is full of customizable stuff and can access lots of API of lower levels than itself. For a shell, this is IMHO a recipe for disaster, even/specially for scripters."

Read the artocle. He covers this complaint. Anytime you have power, you have the capacity to do damage.

Reply Parent Score: 0