[News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further - Linux ; Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire ,----[ Quote ] | Unlike Powershell, Hotwire includes a rich visual user interface with support | for features like easy history browsing (command history is stored in a | SQLite database), ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

  1. [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Unlike Powershell, Hotwire includes a rich visual user interface with support
    | for features like easy history browsing (command history is stored in a
    | SQLite database), icons in file listings, and progress bar displays for
    | certain file operations. The user interface also provides extensive support
    | for advanced autocompletion mechanisms that can be customized by developers.
    `----

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire

    Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses the|a
    command line.


    Related:

    Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105


    Worm targets Windows PowerShell script

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Virus writers have created an experimental form of malware written in
    | Windows PowerShell script, the command line and scripting language used by
    | Windows.
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...wershell_worm/


    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


    When will we hear the end of computer quacks?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | So why beat the dead skunk again? Check it out: Don Norman discovered
    | command line interfaces! And he's about to take his discovery to the
    | press! Yes, he thinks this is an original discovery all his own.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | I can't wait until Microsoft invents apt-get so he can fawn over it next...
    `----

    http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index....&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


    Geek to Live: The command line comeback

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The advent of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) forever
    | revolutionized personal computing. A windowed system with point
    | and click icons made computers usable for anyone who couldn't deal
    | with a black screen and a prompt waiting for arcane textual commands.
    | But in recent years, this enormous interface change is coming full
    | circle. Amongst power users - and more and more, regular Joe's - the
    | command line is making a comeback in modern web and desktop
    | applications.
    `----

    http://www.lifehacker.com/software/c...ack-226223.php
    http://tinyurl.com/y88w3w


    Who needs the command line? (Well, actually, we all do)

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "We'll always have Paris", Humphrey Bogart said to Ingrid Bergman
    | in the iconic climax of Casablanca - and we will always have the
    | command line. Here's looking at you kid!
    `----

    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/...line_we_all_do


    Death of the command line

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | It's hard for me to imagine using an OS without a strong command line.
    | Even Microsoft has recognized the for that with their Monad Shell
    | (though they are at least temporarily removing that from Vista). Linux
    | of course has its Bash shell, Mac OS X has Terminal (which now defaults
    | to Bash) - everybody knows you need a shell.
    `----

    http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/command_line_death.html


    You use Command Lines all the time and don't know it!!!

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Man, the heat Linux catches over command lines! The flames! The trolls!
    | The clueless screaming for help! And all the while, command lines are
    | right under your nose the whole time! Yes, even on the most mousy,
    | GUI-driven, WIMPy, point-n-drool interface, whether it be Macs or
    | Microsofties, you're typing commands into prompts every day!
    `----

    http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index....&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

  2. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    > | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    > | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105


    If true, the above is incredible.

    --
    PowerSmell!

  3. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire


    >

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
    >
    > Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses the|a
    > command line.



    "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."

    ho hum. So what else is new?

    Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't "inspired
    by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a Microsoft app or
    other commercial app or technology?



  4. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    Linonut wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    > wisdom:
    >
    >> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105

    >
    > If true, the above is incredible.


    The article is nearly a year old, and was written before Vista was released.

    What's incredible is you "advocates" don't call out the lying, spamming
    idiot. He's not as bad as he used to be - nowadays he mostly lifts his
    thread titles directly from the bogus anti-MS blogs cola likes to quote
    from - but hopefully his PhD "thesis" is scrutinized closely and any
    falsified data and plagiarism revealed before the dirtbag dons his cloak
    and flips his tassel.


  5. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further


    "DFS" wrote in message
    news:%FHVi.44268$b9.18912@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire

    >
    >>

    > http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
    >>
    >> Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses
    >> the|a
    >> command line.

    >
    >
    > "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."
    >
    > ho hum. So what else is new?
    >
    > Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't
    > "inspired
    > by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a Microsoft app or
    > other commercial app or technology?
    >


    Perhaps it's time to create a web-site that boycott's this new "innovation"
    from the OSS world. Funny how not that long ago the "advocates" here in COLA
    were claiming how useless PowerShell was and how it was inferior to what
    linux had. Then suddenly the linux CLI gets this new innovation/breakthrough
    and now that they've stolen^h^h^h copied a bunch of ideas from PowerShell
    they all crow about their "innovation"

    [quote]
    Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell, the underlying infrastructure of
    Hotwire is based on the principle of object pipelines. Instead of piping
    static text from one command to another, Hotwire transmits Python object
    instances. Hotwire's object-oriented underpinnings make it possible to
    perform filtering on object properties and display command output in
    graphical tables with titled columns.
    [-quote]



    Hmmmm.... sounds just like what PowerShell had over a year ago.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further


    "[H]omer" wrote in message news:ca7kv4-112.ln1@sky.matrix...
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    >> wisdom:

    >
    >>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >>> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >>> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105

    >>
    >> If true, the above is incredible.


    Not true. You "advocates" are simply clueless as usual.

    Windows PowerShell 1.0 Installation Package for Windows Vista
    File Name: Windows6.0-KB928439-x86.msu
    Version: 928439
    Knowledge Base (KB) Articles: KB928439
    Date Published: 1/30/2007

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en



    Windows PowerShell 1.0 Installation Package for Windows Vista x64 Edition
    File Name: Windows6.0-KB928439-x64.msu
    Version: 928439
    Knowledge Base (KB) Articles: KB928439
    Date Published: 1/30/2007

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en



    > [x] True
    > [ ] False


    [H]omer is a :

    [x] Liar
    [x] Retard
    [x] Typical clueless "advocate"


    > 'The PowerShell version that will run on the gold version of Vista
    > version is still "at least a few more weeks" away'


    Says the [M]oron who was already proven wrong by the links ahead. But I'm
    sure that your secret undisclosed source knows better than the facts that
    prove you wrong.


    > The reason is simple; they're still trying to figure out a way to
    > integrate the "[C]ancel | [A]llow" UAC into a text console, without
    > using pointy-clicky things.


    While you're busy trying to figure out how to appear even dumber than you
    already do.


    > This bit is hilarious:
    >
    > 'Windows PowerShell includes:
    > . One hundred and twenty-nine standard utilities ("cmdlets")'
    >
    > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!


    People are not laughing with you, they are laughing at you.



    > It does "scripting" too. WOW! INNOVA~1.


    Yes indeed it was innovated by Microsoft. Then stolen and ripped off by the
    OSS dimwits.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer

    wrote
    on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:47:22 +0000
    :
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    >>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >>> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >>> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105

    >>
    >> If true, the above is incredible.

    >
    > [x] True
    > [ ] False
    >
    > 'The PowerShell version that will run on the gold version of Vista
    > version is still "at least a few more weeks" away'
    >
    > The reason is simple; they're still trying to figure out a way to
    > integrate the "[C]ancel | [A]llow" UAC into a text console, without
    > using pointy-clicky things.
    >
    > This bit is hilarious:
    >
    > 'Windows PowerShell includes:
    > . One hundred and twenty-nine standard utilities ("cmdlets")'
    >
    > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
    >
    > It does "scripting" too. WOW! INNOVA~1.
    >


    And JScript, VBScript, and COMMAND.COM didn't? :-)

    Gods. Of course Bourne predates all of this; DOS didn't
    even really exist prior to a deal with Seattle Computer
    Products in August 1980. Bourne shell was introduced
    with System 7 of Unix in 1979, and had reasonably good
    scripting capabilities, including arbitrary variables,
    conditional statements, here documents, pipelines,
    redirects, and backticks. Surprisingly, '#' was not yet
    available (that came 2 years later); comments however were
    available, with some care, using the null command (':'),
    but one had to be careful lest one introduce things like

    : `program arg 1>&2`

    which will be an expensive no-op...if not worse.

    Two even earlier shells are the Thomson shell and the
    PWB/Mashey shell, which may point to some of the more
    interesting decisions in Bourne and BASH later on.
    The Thomson shell was available in 1971, though was
    extremely primitive compared to modern variants; it was
    also not designed for scripting. However, it did innovate
    the idea of redirection using a '>' or '<' on the same
    line; a subsequent rev started to use vertical bar ('|')
    for piping, a convention now adopted by many other shells
    and systems.

    The PWB/Mashey shell in 1977 internalized if and goto,
    extending the former to allow if-then-else-endif; it also
    added onintr (which Bourne generalized later to 'trap')
    and simple one-letter variables, including $p (which
    became $PATH in later shells).

    The C shell is another offshoot, written originally for
    BSD by Bill Joy. For some reason Wikipedia doesn't note
    its exact creation year, but the article mentions System 6.

    COMMAND.COM had pipelines (using temporary files),
    variables, redirects, and a crude variant of conditional
    statements. It also had REM, which was an improvement
    over Bourne -- though not much of one.

    Yeah, such innovation. And yet .BAT files persist
    even today. Blecch.

    I'll admit Powershell is an interesting concept but I don't
    see much point in sending objects through a pipeline;
    it's more robust and flexible to marshall those objects
    to ASCII or Unicode, send them as a character stream,
    then unmarshall them back. It's also more CPU-intensive,
    but what is an object anyway to Unix or Linux?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  8. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    newsmbkv4-bfb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:47:22 +0000
    > :
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    >>> wisdom:

    >>
    >>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >>>> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >>>> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
    >>>
    >>> If true, the above is incredible.

    >>
    >> [x] True
    >> [ ] False
    >>
    >> 'The PowerShell version that will run on the gold version of Vista
    >> version is still "at least a few more weeks" away'
    >>
    >> The reason is simple; they're still trying to figure out a way to
    >> integrate the "[C]ancel | [A]llow" UAC into a text console, without
    >> using pointy-clicky things.
    >>
    >> This bit is hilarious:
    >>
    >> 'Windows PowerShell includes:
    >> . One hundred and twenty-nine standard utilities ("cmdlets")'
    >>
    >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
    >>
    >> It does "scripting" too. WOW! INNOVA~1.
    >>

    >
    > And JScript, VBScript, and COMMAND.COM didn't? :-)
    >
    > Gods. Of course Bourne predates all of this; DOS didn't
    > even really exist prior to a deal with Seattle Computer
    > Products in August 1980. Bourne shell was introduced
    > with System 7 of Unix in 1979, and had reasonably good
    > scripting capabilities, including arbitrary variables,
    > conditional statements, here documents, pipelines,
    > redirects, and backticks. Surprisingly, '#' was not yet
    > available (that came 2 years later); comments however were
    > available, with some care, using the null command (':'),
    > but one had to be careful lest one introduce things like
    >
    > : `program arg 1>&2`
    >
    > which will be an expensive no-op...if not worse.
    >
    > Two even earlier shells are the Thomson shell and the
    > PWB/Mashey shell, which may point to some of the more
    > interesting decisions in Bourne and BASH later on.
    > The Thomson shell was available in 1971, though was
    > extremely primitive compared to modern variants; it was
    > also not designed for scripting. However, it did innovate
    > the idea of redirection using a '>' or '<' on the same
    > line; a subsequent rev started to use vertical bar ('|')
    > for piping, a convention now adopted by many other shells
    > and systems.
    >
    > The PWB/Mashey shell in 1977 internalized if and goto,
    > extending the former to allow if-then-else-endif; it also
    > added onintr (which Bourne generalized later to 'trap')
    > and simple one-letter variables, including $p (which
    > became $PATH in later shells).
    >
    > The C shell is another offshoot, written originally for
    > BSD by Bill Joy. For some reason Wikipedia doesn't note
    > its exact creation year, but the article mentions System 6.
    >
    > COMMAND.COM had pipelines (using temporary files),
    > variables, redirects, and a crude variant of conditional
    > statements. It also had REM, which was an improvement
    > over Bourne -- though not much of one.
    >
    > Yeah, such innovation. And yet .BAT files persist
    > even today. Blecch.
    >
    > I'll admit Powershell is an interesting concept but I don't
    > see much point in sending objects through a pipeline;
    > it's more robust and flexible to marshall those objects
    > to ASCII or Unicode, send them as a character stream,
    > then unmarshall them back. It's also more CPU-intensive,
    > but what is an object anyway to Unix or Linux?


    What's an object to any OS?

    As far as being robust and flexible to marshall the objects, send them as a
    char-stream and unmarshall them I would disagree. Take the hypothetical
    where you have a couple of scripts. One creates an "object" that is a
    collection of certain files on your file-system based on some special
    criteria. (It's not a simple 'ls').

    The other script takes as input, one of these 'file collection' objects.
    Marshalling the object to/from ASCII or Unicode would work for simple cases
    where only a small number of files were being represented.

    But take the case where there are thousands, or millions of objects being
    represented by this 'file collection' object. It would be incredibly
    inefficient and tedious to marshall an object of this size.

    It would be better to simply send the 'object' across and automatically
    remap the address space of the object across the two scripts without having
    to copy the data.

    This would be especially useful if the second script that accepts this
    object as an input parameter did very little with the object then say... see
    if the collection is empty or not.






    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either

    >
    > > ,----[ Quote ]
    > > | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    > > | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    > > | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    > > `----

    >
    > >http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105

    >
    > If true, the above is incredible.
    >
    > --
    > PowerSmell!


    It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
    It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
    fro quite some time.

    --
    Tom Shelton


  10. Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either

    >>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >>> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >>> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >>> `----

    >>
    >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105

    >>
    >> If true, the above is incredible.
    >>
    >> --
    >> PowerSmell!

    >
    > It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
    > It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
    > fro quite some time.


    Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news" stories
    as current.

  11. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    DFS wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire

    >
    >>

    >

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
    >>
    >> Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses
    >> the|a command line.

    >
    >
    > "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."
    >
    > ho hum. So what else is new?
    >
    > Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't
    > "inspired by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a
    > Microsoft app or other commercial app or technology?


    I'll answer a rhetorical question with another.

    Who "borrowed" TCP/IP from whom?

    --
    This message brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department

  12. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further


    "skydweller" wrote in message
    news:OOMVi.1141$2T3.1127@newsfe12.lga...
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire

    >>
    >>>

    >>

    > http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
    >>>
    >>> Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses
    >>> the|a command line.

    >>
    >>
    >> "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."
    >>
    >> ho hum. So what else is new?
    >>
    >> Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't
    >> "inspired by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a
    >> Microsoft app or other commercial app or technology?

    >
    > I'll answer a rhetorical question with another.
    >
    > Who "borrowed" TCP/IP from whom?



    What! Besides the PowerShell features, did those linux bastards steal the
    TCP/IP stack from someone too? Because it sure wasn't Microsoft that
    "borrowed" someone TCP/IP stack.



    http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displays.../19/05641/7357

    [quote]
    I worked at Microsoft for ten years, most of it on the core Windows NT/2000
    (hereafter referred to as NT) networking code. As such I briefly dealt with
    the Hotmail team, mostly to hear them complain about the lameness of the
    telnet daemon in NT (a valid point). I do know that when Microsoft bought
    Hotmail, the email system was entirely running on FreeBSD, and Microsoft
    immediately set about trying to migrate it to NT, and it took many years to
    do so. Now it seems that the transition is not complete. Well, what are you
    gonna do.
    On the other hand, I know a lot about the TCP/IP stack that is running on
    NT. Here is a short history of it (some of this may also be told in the book
    How the Web Was Won, but I haven't read it):
    [-quote]





    > --
    > This message brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith Windsor

    wrote
    on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:10 -0400
    <47277c7c$0$26469$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > newsmbkv4-bfb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:47:22 +0000
    >> :
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    >>>> wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly
    >>>>> | released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language
    >>>>> | doesn't currently work with Windows Vista.
    >>>>> `----
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
    >>>>
    >>>> If true, the above is incredible.
    >>>
    >>> [x] True
    >>> [ ] False
    >>>
    >>> 'The PowerShell version that will run on the gold version of Vista
    >>> version is still "at least a few more weeks" away'
    >>>
    >>> The reason is simple; they're still trying to figure out a way to
    >>> integrate the "[C]ancel | [A]llow" UAC into a text console, without
    >>> using pointy-clicky things.
    >>>
    >>> This bit is hilarious:
    >>>
    >>> 'Windows PowerShell includes:
    >>> . One hundred and twenty-nine standard utilities ("cmdlets")'
    >>>
    >>> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
    >>>
    >>> It does "scripting" too. WOW! INNOVA~1.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And JScript, VBScript, and COMMAND.COM didn't? :-)
    >>
    >> Gods. Of course Bourne predates all of this; DOS didn't
    >> even really exist prior to a deal with Seattle Computer
    >> Products in August 1980. Bourne shell was introduced
    >> with System 7 of Unix in 1979, and had reasonably good
    >> scripting capabilities, including arbitrary variables,
    >> conditional statements, here documents, pipelines,
    >> redirects, and backticks. Surprisingly, '#' was not yet
    >> available (that came 2 years later); comments however were
    >> available, with some care, using the null command (':'),
    >> but one had to be careful lest one introduce things like
    >>
    >> : `program arg 1>&2`
    >>
    >> which will be an expensive no-op...if not worse.
    >>
    >> Two even earlier shells are the Thomson shell and the
    >> PWB/Mashey shell, which may point to some of the more
    >> interesting decisions in Bourne and BASH later on.
    >> The Thomson shell was available in 1971, though was
    >> extremely primitive compared to modern variants; it was
    >> also not designed for scripting. However, it did innovate
    >> the idea of redirection using a '>' or '<' on the same
    >> line; a subsequent rev started to use vertical bar ('|')
    >> for piping, a convention now adopted by many other shells
    >> and systems.
    >>
    >> The PWB/Mashey shell in 1977 internalized if and goto,
    >> extending the former to allow if-then-else-endif; it also
    >> added onintr (which Bourne generalized later to 'trap')
    >> and simple one-letter variables, including $p (which
    >> became $PATH in later shells).
    >>
    >> The C shell is another offshoot, written originally for
    >> BSD by Bill Joy. For some reason Wikipedia doesn't note
    >> its exact creation year, but the article mentions System 6.
    >>
    >> COMMAND.COM had pipelines (using temporary files),
    >> variables, redirects, and a crude variant of conditional
    >> statements. It also had REM, which was an improvement
    >> over Bourne -- though not much of one.
    >>
    >> Yeah, such innovation. And yet .BAT files persist
    >> even today. Blecch.
    >>
    >> I'll admit Powershell is an interesting concept but I don't
    >> see much point in sending objects through a pipeline;
    >> it's more robust and flexible to marshall those objects
    >> to ASCII or Unicode, send them as a character stream,
    >> then unmarshall them back. It's also more CPU-intensive,
    >> but what is an object anyway to Unix or Linux?

    >
    > What's an object to any OS?
    >
    > As far as being robust and flexible to marshall the objects,
    > send them as a char-stream and unmarshall them I would
    > disagree. Take the hypothetical where you have a couple
    > of scripts. One creates an "object" that is a collection of
    > certain files on your file-system based on some special
    > criteria. (It's not a simple 'ls').


    OK, so now one has a container with a list of file objects.
    An interesting happenstance.

    >
    > The other script takes as input, one of these
    > 'file collection' objects. Marshalling the object
    > to/from ASCII or Unicode would work for simple cases
    > where only a small number of files were being represented.
    >
    > But take the case where there are thousands, or millions
    > of objects being represented by this 'file collection' object.
    > It would be incredibly inefficient and tedious to marshall
    > an object of this size.


    But it would have to be done if one is using ssh -- unless
    one wanted to do something clever, like a reverse-lookup
    maybe?

    Best I can do is postulate object-broker daemons across
    the entire network. These daemons would open a port,
    and whenever someone has to process an object on another
    node, the client would communicate with the daemon, which
    would verify the client's identity and call the desired
    method on the object given.

    SOAP/XMLP would work reasonably well here, except that
    "marshalling" of an object would have to spit out a
    globally-well-known identifier tag that everyone knows
    how to handle, as opposed to converting the entire object
    into a byte stream or XML node. Under certain conditions,
    the executable code associated with the object might have
    to be transmitted as well.

    I'd have to research bonobo.

    >
    > It would be better to simply send the 'object' across and
    > automatically remap the address space of the object across
    > the two scripts without having to copy the data.


    Gosh, how "innovative"! The Amiga was doing that, albeit
    not at the shell level, back in the mid-80's! :-)

    >
    > This would be especially useful if the second script
    > that accepts this object as an input parameter did very
    > little with the object then say... see if the collection
    > is empty or not.
    >


    In which case one might simply pass a count instead.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    GNU and improved.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  14. Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:28:46 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    >>> wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly |
    >>>> released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language |
    >>>> doesn't currently work with Windows Vista. `----
    >>>
    >>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
    >>>
    >>> If true, the above is incredible.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> PowerSmell!

    >>
    >> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day. It
    >> might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true fro
    >> quite some time.

    >
    > Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news"
    > stories as current.


    Roy is a complete idiot IMHO.
    I speak with several people, in very influential places, on ICQ on a
    regular basis and the general feeling about Roy is that he means well but
    is severely misguided.
    Some wish he would go away in fact.

    My personal feeling is free speech should be defended at all costs.
    He is entitled to his opinion as much as you and I.
    Let the public decide.


    --
    flatfish+++

    "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
    "Is this the year of Linux?"
    "Linux is free only when your time has no value"

  15. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith Windsor

    wrote
    on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:07:46 -0400
    <47279146$0$14527$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
    >
    > "skydweller" wrote in message
    > news:OOMVi.1141$2T3.1127@newsfe12.lga...
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >> http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
    >>>>
    >>>> Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses
    >>>> the|a command line.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."
    >>>
    >>> ho hum. So what else is new?
    >>>
    >>> Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't
    >>> "inspired by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a
    >>> Microsoft app or other commercial app or technology?

    >>
    >> I'll answer a rhetorical question with another.
    >>
    >> Who "borrowed" TCP/IP from whom?

    >
    >
    > What! Besides the PowerShell features, did those linux bastards steal the
    > TCP/IP stack from someone too? Because it sure wasn't Microsoft that
    > "borrowed" someone TCP/IP stack.


    The original TCP/IP stack is arguably from the Woolongong
    group, on Unix. However, a quick Google indicates that the
    first implementation may have been PC/IP from MIT, which
    was the basis of the now-defunct company FTP Software, Inc.
    KA9Q is the second implementation, and is now largely
    useless but may be of interest to historians.

    http://www.ka9q.net/code/ka9qnos/

    Microsoft should patent TCP/IP at some point; the results
    would be interesting. ;-) However, a quick perusal of
    /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4 didn't show anything other than the
    rather enigmatic name 'INET' and a GPLv2 license message.

    I can't say whom it came from.

    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displays.../19/05641/7357
    >
    > [quote]
    > I worked at Microsoft for ten years, most of it on the core Windows NT/2000
    > (hereafter referred to as NT) networking code. As such I briefly dealt with
    > the Hotmail team, mostly to hear them complain about the lameness of the
    > telnet daemon in NT (a valid point). I do know that when Microsoft bought
    > Hotmail, the email system was entirely running on FreeBSD, and Microsoft
    > immediately set about trying to migrate it to NT, and it took many years to
    > do so. Now it seems that the transition is not complete. Well, what are you
    > gonna do.
    > On the other hand, I know a lot about the TCP/IP stack that is running on
    > NT. Here is a short history of it (some of this may also be told in the book
    > How the Web Was Won, but I haven't read it):
    > [-quote]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> --
    >> This message brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department

    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    GNU and improved.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further


    "flatfish+++" wrote in message
    news:fg88lj$i2r$17@registered.motzarella.org...
    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:28:46 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
    >>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
    >>>> wisdom:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>>
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> | As a few other bloggers noted yesterday, Microsoft's newly |
    >>>>> released PowerShell command-line shell and scripting language |
    >>>>> doesn't currently work with Windows Vista. `----
    >>>>
    >>>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
    >>>>
    >>>> If true, the above is incredible.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> PowerSmell!
    >>>
    >>> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day. It
    >>> might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true fro
    >>> quite some time.

    >>
    >> Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news"
    >> stories as current.

    >
    > Roy is a complete idiot IMHO.


    You're not alone.


    > I speak with several people, in very influential places, on ICQ on a
    > regular basis and the general feeling about Roy is that he means well but
    > is severely misguided.


    Here I disagree with the "general feeling about Roy is that he means well
    but..."

    According to the church, any action that is primarily driven by hatred
    cannot be well intended. The actions may be the same but if something is
    done out of love then it is OK. But if someone does the same thing out of
    hatred or anger then it is a bad thing.

    Everything Roy Schestowitz does is out of hatred of Microsoft. He is a
    bitter child and his hate has driven him to lies, dishonest and unethical
    behavior. To me and the church, Roy Schestowitz is not someone who "means
    well."



    > Some wish he would go away in fact.
    >
    > My personal feeling is free speech should be defended at all costs.
    > He is entitled to his opinion as much as you and I.
    > Let the public decide.
    >
    >
    > --
    > flatfish+++
    >
    > "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
    > "Is this the year of Linux?"
    > "Linux is free only when your time has no value"




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  17. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 30 October 2007 19:02 : \____

    > Yeah, such innovation. *And yet .BAT files persist
    > even today. *Blecch.


    I did some batch scripting as a teenager. There's some expressive power, but
    it's very low and it takes a lot of effort (or lines of code) to achieve
    simple things that Linux achieves very easily, elegantly, and quickly. There's
    surely a lot of catching up to do. Some GNU utilities have evolved and matured
    for over 2 decades (!!).

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Proprietary, lockin-based tools lead to regrets. Doc(umen)tor, heal thyself.
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  18. Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
    >>>
    >>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
    >>>
    >>> If true, the above is incredible.

    >>
    >> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
    >> It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
    >> fro quite some time.


    I almost downloaded PowerShell a few days ago. But those dang system
    verification thingies got my goat. The audacity!

    Besides, how was I going to authenticate my Linux system with Microsoft?

    > Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news" stories
    > as current.


    Well, it's only about a year old.

    Still, that's a long time in computing terms, even for Microsoft.

    Maybe Roy should add the date as part of the posting.

    --
    Tux rox!

  19. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > This bit is hilarious:
    >
    > 'Windows PowerShell includes:
    > . One hundred and twenty-nine standard utilities ("cmdlets")'
    >
    > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
    >
    > It does "scripting" too. WOW! INNOVA~1.


    cmdlets? Not since I discovered that Microsoft calls "directories" by
    the name "folders" have I had such a chuckle over Microsoft
    nomenclature. Next they'll calling the mouse pointer a "cursor". Oh.

    "Say, professor, what cmdlet do I use to edit my program?"

    --
    Tux rox!

  20. Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz

    wrote
    on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:56:22 +0000
    <1250936.y2Qtv4J3Nc@schestowitz.com>:
    > ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 30 October 2007 19:02 : \____
    >
    >> Yeah, such innovation. *And yet .BAT files persist
    >> even today. *Blecch.

    >
    > I did some batch scripting as a teenager. There's some
    > expressive power, but it's very low and it takes a lot
    > of effort (or lines of code) to achieve simple things
    > that Linux achieves very easily, elegantly, and quickly.
    > There's surely a lot of catching up to do. Some GNU
    > utilities have evolved and matured for over 2 decades (!!).


    Aw, but that's old stuff. We should be using a modern
    operating system like Vista.



    At least Cygwin makes XP tolerable, bad as performance
    is otherwise. I'll admit I prefer native Linux though,
    and that's mostly what I use anyway.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast