Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples - Linux ; On Nov 8, 9:14*am, Mart van de Wege wrote: > There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality. Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have to tell you - things are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 217

Thread: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

  1. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Nov 8, 9:14*am, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality.


    Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have
    to tell you - things are getting a ton better. As we get more and
    more into running our own software as a service - a lot of that
    nonsense is going away. I've seen some of the biggest "OH, SHINY!"
    guys get converted into very pragmatic people after trying to stand up
    a service using their software. (there's another Microsoft phrase for
    you - "Stand up" a service)

    Again, it will take us a couple of cycles but we the right people
    experiencing the right pain for the right things to happen going
    forward. It is not a coincidence that the folks that are doing this
    are some of the biggest fans of PowerShell (duh!). We've been working
    closely with some teams standing up services and they have been
    driving much of our V2 work. A lot of V2 is catch up work to have the
    things you Unix guys take for granted but there is also quite a bit of
    new stuff that I think you might find interesting (maybe not).

    V3 will probably focus on catching up with VMS and AS400 :-)

    I couldn't resist the tease - Unix is great and you should be proud of
    your communities accomplishments but the fact of the matter is that
    those technologies are great as well. Those superstar engineers
    deserve credit and admiration for their great achievements as well.
    Credit and respect are not a zero sum games. Respecting other
    communities does not take away from your ability to boast about your
    accomplishments. Publicly acknowledging the contributions of other
    technical communities honors our grand adventure of moving the ball
    forward and creating the technologies which are changing the world.

    A while ago I heard something about the IBM guys saying how well
    positioned they were to take advantage of the move to virtualized
    environments saying, "whenever a tough problem comes up, we're able to
    walk down the hall and describe the problem to our guys and ask, 'how
    did you solve this 30 years ago?'"

    Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    Windows Management Partner Architect
    Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at: http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell
    Visit the Windows PowerShell ScriptCenter at:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr.../hubs/msh.mspx


  2. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    jsnover13@hotmail.com wrote:
    > On Nov 8, 9:14 am, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >> There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality.

    >
    > Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have
    > to tell you - things are getting a ton better. As we get more and
    > more into running our own software as a service - a lot of that
    > nonsense is going away. I've seen some of the biggest "OH, SHINY!"
    > guys get converted into very pragmatic people after trying to stand up
    > a service using their software. (there's another Microsoft phrase for
    > you - "Stand up" a service)
    >
    > Again, it will take us a couple of cycles but we the right people
    > experiencing the right pain for the right things to happen going
    > forward. It is not a coincidence that the folks that are doing this
    > are some of the biggest fans of PowerShell (duh!). We've been working
    > closely with some teams standing up services and they have been
    > driving much of our V2 work. A lot of V2 is catch up work to have the
    > things you Unix guys take for granted but there is also quite a bit of
    > new stuff that I think you might find interesting (maybe not).
    >
    > V3 will probably focus on catching up with VMS and AS400 :-)
    >
    > I couldn't resist the tease - Unix is great and you should be proud of
    > your communities accomplishments but the fact of the matter is that
    > those technologies are great as well. Those superstar engineers
    > deserve credit and admiration for their great achievements as well.
    > Credit and respect are not a zero sum games. Respecting other
    > communities does not take away from your ability to boast about your
    > accomplishments. Publicly acknowledging the contributions of other
    > technical communities honors our grand adventure of moving the ball
    > forward and creating the technologies which are changing the world.
    >
    > A while ago I heard something about the IBM guys saying how well
    > positioned they were to take advantage of the move to virtualized
    > environments saying, "whenever a tough problem comes up, we're able to
    > walk down the hall and describe the problem to our guys and ask, 'how
    > did you solve this 30 years ago?'"
    >
    > Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    > Windows Management Partner Architect
    > Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at:
    > http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell Visit the Windows PowerShell
    > ScriptCenter at:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr.../hubs/msh.mspx



    Nice post Jeff.

    This statement - "Respecting other communities does not take away from your
    ability to boast about your accomplishments." - will fall on deaf ears
    around here, as Linux users are by far the most disrespectful people in all
    of IT, even though most of them make their living with Windows.




  3. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:07:54 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:

    > You are blustering. You were wrong. xargs exists for a reason.


    Yes, it does - among other things, to overcome limits on command line
    sizes - which simply doesn't apply here.


  4. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:30:21 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:

    > More lies. I do not work for MS. I have no love for Windows. I do
    > however know how to administer Linux and Windows machines.


    If you did, you'd know the difference between a *line length* limit and a
    *command line length* limit. Chris pointed out awk can handle very large
    lines; you responded with irrelevant nonsense about xargs.


  5. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:45:42 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:

    >> And you haven't read COLA for the obligatory 3 months yet, judging by
    >> your ignorance.

    >
    > I did not have to do a "obligatory anything" you big headed arsehole.


    I take it you're new to usenet. Usenet has been around a hell of a long
    time, and it is established protocol that one follows a newsgroup for a
    period of time - suggested is about three months - to learn issues of
    topicality, tone, posting styles and so forth.

    No, it's not obligatory. Neither is washing one's hands after
    defecating. It is simply a protocol adopted for the betterment of usenet
    for all users.

    >> 1) Apologise to Chris, then see 2) below.

    >
    > Apologise for what? For correcting him?


    For incorrectly correcting him, perhaps. For getting your knickers in a
    twist over something you got wrong. I refer, in particular, to the bit
    about awk line lengths.

    >> Here you have to EARN credibility and PROVE who you are FIRST, and no
    >> amount of whining and insulting will achieve anything.

    >
    > prove who I am? What the hell are you raving about? Are you insane?


    If you want to be taken seriously by the Linux users here, you're
    failing. If you want to be taken seriously by the Wintrolls here, you're
    succeeding. If that's what you want to accomplish, you'll forgive us for
    regarding you as a wintroll yourself.


  6. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:41:26 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:

    > The point is that one MUST use xargs in a lot of bash commands/scripts
    > since the tools bash allows you to use can not have unlimited input
    > commands.


    Correct. Also completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant in the
    context in which you brought it up.


  7. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:37:42 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:19:54 -0600, Terry Porter wrote:
    >
    >> I'm taking issue with Erik the Wintroll who claimed that Powershell is
    >> superior to Linux Bash, and to me *one* example is enough to prove him
    >> wrong.

    >
    > That's because you can't possibly understand set theory.
    >
    > If there's 2000 examples that prove me right, but one that proves me
    > wrong, in your eyes, i'm wrong.


    Which is a correct summation of the problem as you state it, to wit,
    "Powershell is superior to Linux bash". A single example suffices to
    show that the absolutist form offered by you is incorrect. A more
    general form, such as "Powershell is generally superior to Linux bash"
    would, however, remain true.

    That said, I think it's a bit weird to be quibbling about "2000 versus 1"
    when you've failed to post the 2000 cases it's supposedly better in.

    >> Why would I bother understanding Windows Powershell, I only use Linux,
    >> and this is a Linux advocacy group ?

    >
    > Know thy enemy? Get ideas to copy? Lament your wish that Linux had
    > something like it?


    "Thy enemy" here is, fundamentally, Wintrolls. As to ideas to copy, one
    might point out that MS has, historically, had the *worst* ideas in
    computing rather than the best. Executable emails, for example. Or
    "I'll run anything, if the filename's right - and I'll hide the bit that
    matters." Or this nonsense notion of OneCare - adding bandages to
    provide security, rather than fixing the OS. Need we mention such items
    as Bob?

    One might point out the most glaringly obvious potential flaw in
    PowerShell. I've not used it, I'm simply going by what's being said
    here, but as I understand it, PS relies on a lot of COM interfaces to do
    things - compressing and decompressing files, say - for which there
    aren't direct shell commands available.

    Bash, by contrast, does exactly the opposite - what it ain't got
    internally, it spawns sub-commands for. Shell commands. Programs one
    _can_ run directly.

    Which means that to migrate even a hairy bash shell to another platform
    means ensuring bash and the other relevant tools are available,
    Powershell is, like VB, essentially designed to tie one to a specific OS
    - you can't just copy the shell, port PS itself and port a hatful of
    associated cli tools; you have to port the relevant COM interfaces
    instead, which is liable to be considerably more effort, or you have to
    rewrite the PS script to use those cli tools - which means it no longer
    does the right thing in its native environment.

    This, to me, is not a good thing. It smacks too much of the endlessly
    repeated "We got some tool - Excel, IIS, whatever - we wrote a mess of
    code specific to it, now we can't afford to switch platforms or tool
    sets."

    >> You can argue the fine points all day long, but surely the advocacy of
    >> the Windows Powershell belongs in another Usenet group where *Windows
    >> Advocacy* is welcome ?

    >
    > Who's advocating anything?


    Someone around here is apparently trying to convince us that PS is better
    than bash; that definitely sounds like an advocacy-type comment.

    > I responded to the false comments about how
    > Windows lacks a decent shell or scripting, I proved him wrong.


    Okay, you say it has a decent shell and scripting. So tell us where, on
    a typical user's XP machine, we find Powershell - plus all the cli tools
    needed to do all the little tasks one generally uses such things for.
    Tools such as grep.

    Last I checked, PS simply wasn't on most people's XP machines, and from
    what I'm hearing here, even if you do have PS on your machine, you still
    don't have the cli tools to make it a really sensible scripting
    environment.

    Do feel free to show me wrong, though... just tell me where I find this
    PS thing on Joe Sixpack's XP machine and where all those other little cli
    tools - compressors and decompressors and pattern matching and string
    replacement and on and on and on - all live.

    >> I'm here to *ESCAPE* Windows, not to learn any more about it, what I
    >> know about Windows drove me to Linux in 1997.

    >
    > Yet somehow you can't seem to stop participating in threads in which
    > Windows and Linux are compared


    He's in a Linux advocacy newsgroup, one to which, for some unexplained
    reason, certain Windows-loving sorts persist in posting. The fault lies
    with them spewing their drivel where it isn't topical, not with him for
    discussing Linux's strengths in such threads.


  8. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:05:42 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Now let's take the second paragraph. I do call Terry a stupid troll,


    Which is an ad hominem statement.

    > but not to discredit an argument of Terry's


    Which would make it an ad hominem fallacy - had you done that. The fact
    the former is not an ad hominem fallacy does not mean it is not an ad
    hominem statement; it just means it is an offence only against
    politeness, not against sound argument.



  9. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:00:21 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:10:41 +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >
    >> There is no confusion. Erik specified Powershell as the most powerful
    >> scripting *environment*. When pressed how it would stack up to the
    >> scripting environment on a typical *nix box, he shifted the goalposts
    >> to a comparison of shells only.

    >
    > What is a scripting environment? A shell. Duh.


    You're confusing a tool with an environment.

    What's an IDE - you know, "Integrated Development Environment"? It's not
    just an editor. It's usually either a combination of, or at least a
    front end for, an editor, a compiler, a linker, a debugger, possibly a
    profiler and possibly many more tools.

    bash is a shell - a tool. It is not an environment. The environment is
    the collective set of tools, utilities, shell scripts and so forth which
    bash can call on, just as the IDE can call on the compiler, the editor,
    the debugger.

    Which means the Linux scripting environment, in all but pathological
    cases, will have at a minimum such tools as grep, awk, sed, xargs, find,
    cut, perl, bash and a largish hatful of other goodies.

    > The environment is what the script runs in


    You're confusing the script interpreter with the environment.

    > As an example, wscript is also a scripting environment


    No, it's a script interpreter, which is but part of the scripting
    environment.

    > The shell *IS* the scripting environment.


    It is part of it; it is not the whole thing.


  10. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:19:22 -0800, jsnover13 wrote:

    > That said, the thing I love most about Microsoft is that we are
    > incapable of sustained error


    Okay, which one of you Linux geeks is pretending to be a Windows
    PowerShell architect?

    I don't think even Hadron could have uttered the line above with a
    straight face.




  11. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:55:39 -0800, jsnover13 wrote:

    > On Nov 8, 9:14*am, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >> There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality.

    >
    > Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have to
    > tell you - things are getting a ton better.


    Oh? Explain Vista, then.

    > Again, it will take us a couple of cycles


    A "cycle" being the 6+ years from XP to Vista? So we can expect to see
    something sane out of Redmond sometime in, oh, 2026?

    > A while ago I heard something about the IBM guys saying how well
    > positioned they were to take advantage of the move to virtualized
    > environments saying, "whenever a tough problem comes up, we're able to
    > walk down the hall and describe the problem to our guys and ask, 'how
    > did you solve this 30 years ago?'"


    And in some respects, that's accurate - many of the issues in computing
    were solved 30 years ago. How to manage security in a multi-user,
    networked environment for example. Which explains why so many OSen use
    fundamentally similar approaches, where Microsoft persist in doing
    something different - and giving us a world where something like 100
    million viruses, worms and assorted bits of malware rule the roost.

    If Microsoft would stop trying to play the "We're the greatest, we're the
    prettiest" game and focus on delivering the simple combination of
    reliability and usability, they'd gain a lot of respect from people who
    have been bitten by their current approach, and they *wouldn't* be in the
    position of having to offer downgrade packages, extending "end of
    lifecycle" dates and the like.

    They won't, though; they're far too enamoured of the "not invented here"
    syndrome.


  12. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:05:24 -0800, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > In windows, you have basically 2 types of api's. The typical C/C++
    > library type api's, packaged as dll's in windows - these are not
    > directly accessible to powershell (well, actually you can use them with
    > a little work using the dynamic assembly generation functionality of
    > .net - there are lots of examples of doing this on the net, just Google
    > "powershell p/invoke"). Though, it is again trivial to create a cmdlet
    > that can handle calling these functions if you need them.
    >
    > But, there is another class of api's that utilize com, that are directly
    > and easily callable from powershell. These cover things like the
    > windows task scheduler, bits, cd/dvd burning, media player, sending
    > faxes, and manipulating zip archives. This isn't even counting
    > automation interface provided by such applications as Microsoft Office.
    > Seriously, if you can write a wsh script to automate it, you can use it
    > from powershell.


    Which *really* bugs me.

    It's an invitation to lock-in. It's a way to ensure maximal use of a
    mechanism which effectively blocks any future attempt to migrate the
    scripts elsewhere: once you've expended significant effort into using the
    "easy" approach, you're now well and truly screwed should you ever change
    your mind.

    Yes, MS *could* have chosen to make the cli environment richer and more
    flexible by providing cli tools to do all those little jobs, but if they
    did, PowerShell would end up effectively being a bash clone; while this
    would make it easy (or at least, easier) to migrate bash-based scripts to
    Windows, it would *also* make it easier to migrate Windows tools to
    another platform.

    Yeah, it's "easy". Getting that first dose of crack is easy, too; it's
    kicking the habit or feeding it that's the problem.


  13. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:35:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > If you insist, here's the powershell version of that command.
    >
    > tar cvzf - /wwwdata | ssh ssh user@host "dd of=/path/wwwdata.tar.gz"


    Hmm. I have an XP box here. Well, okay, it's a virtual machine, but
    it'll suffice for testing purposes.

    One slight problem with your example: neither tar nor ssh exists on the
    machine.

    I decided, based on your statement that the powershell equivalent was
    indeed the same. Oddly, I keep running across references to something
    called "/N software", apparently a third-party add-on for powershell, and
    to Cygwin, as it seems powershell doesn't include an ssh client.

    Microsoft's technet, when asked about ssh functionality, offered that
    remoting would be available in the next version, but who knows what it's
    going to contain?

    So, since the XP box doesn't _have_ powershell (where virtually any Linux
    box in existence _will_ have bash) and even if it did, it wouldn't have
    ssh. Nor, apparently, tar, unless I overlooked something.

    So, yes, your powershell equivalent may well look the same, it just
    doesn't seem to work the same - the lack of tar and ssh would seem to be
    something of a problem. Hmm, tar and ssh, two tools virtually guaranteed
    to be on almost any Linux box you'll run across.

    Sorry, *where* was this equivalence coming from?


    > But these stupid examples do nothing to show the power or flexibility of
    > PowerShell, since they're just duplicating functionality on Linux.


    Er... what, you'd rather compare apples and watermelons? Showing us how
    Powershell accomplishes the very tasks we need done is a perfect way for
    Powershell to strut its stuff. If the best it can manage is to duplicate
    what we already have, then it's, oh, 30 years too late to be interesting.

    I don't use LDAP much, so can't be arsed to sort that one out.

    > # Display all the titles from the front page of Slashdot. ([xml]
    > (new-object
    > System.Net.WebClient).DownloadString("http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/

    slashdot")).RDF.Item|
    > select title
    >
    > Can you do that in one line in bash, without shelling out to other
    > tools?


    You "shelled out" to another tool, the system.net.webclient. The fact
    that you used an API call rather than a process launch is no more "doing
    it in powershell" than if you'd printed the string "Please type in the
    titles from slashdot" and waited for user input.

    So let's see you do it, in PowerShell, without shelling out to other
    tools - which means no riding on .NET's coattails and the like.

    > How about this:
    >
    > # Sort all the items in a text file and write to a new file get-content
    > sort.txt | sort-object | out-file new.txt
    >
    > Again, one line, no shelling to other scripting environments.


    No shelling to other scripting _environments_? Easy:

    cat file.txt | sort > outfile

    Now, if you'd meant something like "without invoking other applications",
    you might have had a point, except that were that the case, I'd simply
    note that sort can do all that itself: sort < infile > outfile - voila,
    one app, no calling anything else.

    Now perhaps you're trying to suggest that powershell has the sorting
    functionality built right in, to which the appropriate response might be
    "Who in the name of all that's holy dreamed up *that* abomination?"

    Linux builds upon small tools to accomplish larger tasks. Need something
    sorted? Pipe it through sort. Need something searched? Pipe it through
    grep. And so forth.

    There are three advantages to this:

    1) Each tool tends to be relatively simple, meaning a lesser likelihood
    of bugs.
    2) Each tool tends to be efficient, doing its one particular task well,
    meaning reduced runtimes.
    3) Each tool can be trivially replaced without having to touch a line of
    scripting code relying on the tool.

    So, for example, if I find that overall, sorting is just too damned slow
    and the reason is that the sort utility is using a shell sort instead of
    a stable merge sort, I can replace the algorithm without mucking up - or
    even looking at - a single script relying on it.

    So, for the sake of comparison, how do you replace PowerShell's
    presumably built-in sort? Note that sort-object, whatever it is, must in
    fact be built right into PowerShell - i.e. not be a cmdlet - or your
    entire question falls apart, but that in turn means that to replace it,
    you have to modify powershell itself, no? Okay, fine, how do you do it?

    > So what's the big deal about shelling to other scripts? Nothing


    Yet you seem to have an issue with it.

  14. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:35:40 -0800, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > The things that makes powershell powerfull is it's object oriented
    > nature. If you want a fair evaluation of powershell vs bash, take a
    > look at this article from Linux magazine:
    >
    > http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/7...PowerShell.pdf


    I looked. Take listing 3 as an example. After some setup, it calls New-
    Object System.Net.WebClient, which it then uses to retrieve some data
    from a remote site.

    Well, jolly good, that shows us the power and flexibility of .NET, but we
    weren't talking about .NET, now were we? No, we were talking about
    PowerShell. If we wanted to compare development toolsets, we'd have to
    include gnome's libraries and kde's libraries and perl - including all of
    CPAN - and php and about 10,000 libraries available for Linux.

    That tells us the richness of the environments, such as perl's ability to
    pull in and parse XML data and so forth, but it tells us *bugger all*
    about the utility of the thing driving the process, that is, PowerShell.

    Well, no, it does tell us one thing about PowerShell. Doing it "the
    Linux way", the results can be trivially ported - complete with PHP and
    Perl and CPAN at the least - to other platforms, including Windows.
    Doing it the PowerShell way, that is, the way you're presenting it, seems
    to indicate that it cannot be thus ported, that the interfaces, at the
    very least, will have to be rewritten.

    For vendor lock-in, this seems good. For sensible development practises,
    this seems not so good.


  15. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > [snips]
    >
    > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:45:42 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:
    >
    >>> And you haven't read COLA for the obligatory 3 months yet, judging by
    >>> your ignorance.

    >>
    >> I did not have to do a "obligatory anything" you big headed arsehole.

    >
    > I take it you're new to usenet. Usenet has been around a hell of a long
    > time, and it is established protocol that one follows a newsgroup for a
    > period of time - suggested is about three months - to learn issues of
    > topicality, tone, posting styles and so forth.
    >
    > No, it's not obligatory. Neither is washing one's hands after
    > defecating. It is simply a protocol adopted for the betterment of usenet
    > for all users.
    >
    >>> 1) Apologise to Chris, then see 2) below.

    >>
    >> Apologise for what? For correcting him?

    >
    > For incorrectly correcting him, perhaps. For getting your knickers in a
    > twist over something you got wrong. I refer, in particular, to the bit
    > about awk line lengths.
    >
    >>> Here you have to EARN credibility and PROVE who you are FIRST, and no
    >>> amount of whining and insulting will achieve anything.

    >>
    >> prove who I am? What the hell are you raving about? Are you insane?

    >
    > If you want to be taken seriously by the Linux users here, you're
    > failing. If you want to be taken seriously by the Wintrolls here, you're
    > succeeding. If that's what you want to accomplish, you'll forgive us for
    > regarding you as a wintroll yourself.


    He is one.
    He is Hadron Quark. Tried a flatish routine. And failed
    --
    Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
    you with experience...


  16. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:12:32 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:

    >> Why wouldn't I be? I, personally, would really have a hard time
    >> dealing /only/ with Windows systems. Much prefer Linux.
    >>
    >> Hell, I'd rather spend all my time on Solaris than on Windows.

    >
    > What do you use computers for that you can use Linux all the time?


    Can't say for him, but for myself...

    My workaday job is at an ISP. For them I do network administration,
    server management, hardware support, software engineering, monitoring,
    etc, etc, etc. I'm also heading up the rollout of our entire VOIP
    service.

    On top of that, I occasionally deal with customer service, I have to
    compose and update documents composed by coworkers, the usual office
    overhead.

    At home, I do all the usual things - some gaming, though not a hell of a
    lot - email, web browsing, news reading, software development,
    networking, etc, etc, etc.

    I have one machine more or less dedicated now to media; it has a Hauppage
    WinTV-PVR 500 in it which has an onboard splitter and two onboard tuners
    and hardware encoders, the result of which is I can record two
    simultaneous shows off cable and store them as any format I wish; I
    generally leave them as their default MPEG-2 stream, but I process them
    to strip out ads. The resultant files are then broadcast, wirelessly, to
    a DLINK DSM-320 in the bedroom (that being the only place we watch much
    TV, as we tend to put something on and fall asleep to it.)

    My box at home - as my box at work - has a variety of servers on it,
    including Postgres, MySQL and Apache, as I use these to test web code
    before using it in a production setting.

    Of course, there's the other usual crud. I have a good-sized mp3
    collection which I manage and play with Amarok, which also happily talks
    to the Sony MP3 player I got her for her birthday last year - just tell
    Amarok which tunes you want to drop onto the device, it sorts out what
    goes where and how.

    Oh, and there's always the IM issue. I'm typically running two MSN and
    two Yahoo accounts, an ICQ account and a Jabber account, all via Kopete,
    plus Skype.

    And then there's email. Yeah, I know, Windows does email, all well and
    good, but how does it handle spam? Right now, client-side, I've got
    crm114, bsfilter, bogofilter, spambayes and spamassassin (daemon) filters
    churning over the inbound emails - and while I get a *hell* of a lot of
    spam, I get *very* damned little in my inbox. Oh, I suppose I should
    point out that each and every one of those lives in the repository - no
    need to hunt the web for them, just search the database, quickly and
    efficiently.

    I'll grant that five filters is overkill, but then I'm using the spams I
    encounter to train a central filter as well - meaning I like to be a
    little more exposed to incoming spam than most, which in turn means
    maximizing the detection rates by using the strengths of several tools
    rather than just one.

    I run leafnode, for purposes of archiving as well as purposes of
    filtering - why download dross I don't want in the first place? This
    makes news reading somewhat more pleasant. Also somewhat more efficient;
    even if I'm not actively reading news, it gets polled every 15 minutes or
    so, so when I do go to read it, it's always up to date.

    So, basically, everything Joe Sixpack uses his computer for and more, I
    do in Linux. There are only three times I touch Windows:

    1) When fixing someone's Windows computer.
    2) When provisioning or maintaining a Windows server at work.
    3) When using our CRM program at work, which is Windows-specific and
    hasn't yet been upgraded to the newer version with the web interface - at
    which point I can cease using Windows _at all_ except for fixing existing
    Windows systems or provisioning new Windows servers. The former of which
    is distressingly common, the latter of which is happily fading out.

    Or, in short, barring a *damned* few exceptions, anything I can do in
    Windows, I can do in Linux - but I can do so on my terms, in whatever
    manner I wish, without "benefit" of restrictive licenses, enforced DRM,
    my computer trying to dictate what I'm allowed to do with it, without the
    "benefit" of anti-virus and anti-hijack and anti-spyware tools and other
    such pointless, resource-draining nonsense.

    Why, what did you *think* we did with Linux?


  17. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:39:08 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >> We just ignore Wintrolls.

    >
    > Because you prefer to bask in your ignorance.


    Now that's rich - the notion that a *troll* is going to cure ignorance.

    No, Erik, if we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
    indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
    less by definition, *promote* ignorance.


  18. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    jsnover13@hotmail.com writes:

    > On Nov 8, 9:14*am, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >> There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality.

    >
    > Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have
    > to tell you - things are getting a ton better.


    It's not that I don't believe (I do), but I have to go with what
    actually gets released and marketed.

    So it'll take a few releases to get me to be a mite less skeptical.

    > I couldn't resist the tease - Unix is great and you should be proud
    > of your communities accomplishments but the fact of the matter is
    > that those technologies are great as well. Those superstar
    > engineers deserve credit and admiration for their great achievements
    > as well. Credit and respect are not a zero sum games.


    I never said so. Even if it is good software, I probably will not like
    Microsoft software, because of the way things are implemented, but
    that's a matter of *taste*. I am more than willing to acknowledge good
    things can come out of Redmond. *I*, and quite a few others with me in
    this group, am not playing a zero-sum game.

    However, the fanboys like Erik do. And they'll get hammered for their
    hyperbole. Nothing to do with the relative merits of MS software, but
    everything to do with the idiocy of some of your fanboys. Not your
    fault, but at least you know why some people here get a decidedly less
    friendly treatment than you.

    Mart


    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  19. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Mart van de Wege writes:

    > jsnover13@hotmail.com writes:
    >
    >> On Nov 8, 9:14*am, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >>> There is also an obvious 'OH, SHINY!' mentality.

    >>
    >> Ha ha - that's a good one. It's quite true at some level but I have
    >> to tell you - things are getting a ton better.

    >
    > It's not that I don't believe (I do), but I have to go with what
    > actually gets released and marketed.
    >
    > So it'll take a few releases to get me to be a mite less skeptical.
    >
    >> I couldn't resist the tease - Unix is great and you should be proud
    >> of your communities accomplishments but the fact of the matter is
    >> that those technologies are great as well. Those superstar
    >> engineers deserve credit and admiration for their great achievements
    >> as well. Credit and respect are not a zero sum games.

    >
    > I never said so. Even if it is good software, I probably will not like
    > Microsoft software, because of the way things are implemented, but
    > that's a matter of *taste*. I am more than willing to acknowledge good
    > things can come out of Redmond. *I*, and quite a few others with me in
    > this group, am not playing a zero-sum game.
    >
    > However, the fanboys like Erik do. And they'll get hammered for their
    > hyperbole. Nothing to do with the relative merits of MS software, but
    > everything to do with the idiocy of some of your fanboys. Not your
    > fault, but at least you know why some people here get a decidedly less
    > friendly treatment than you.
    >
    > Mart


    Allowing for the fact that you are an obvious sock, would you like to
    post links to this "fanboy" posts from Erik? I have never seen them. It
    strikes me that all he does is point out the lies and stupidity of the
    likes of Mark Kent, Roy and Terry "The Big I Am" Porter.


  20. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Hadron writes:

    > Mart van de Wege writes:



    >> However, the fanboys like Erik do. And they'll get hammered for their
    >> hyperbole. Nothing to do with the relative merits of MS software, but
    >> everything to do with the idiocy of some of your fanboys. Not your
    >> fault, but at least you know why some people here get a decidedly less
    >> friendly treatment than you.
    >>
    >> Mart

    >
    > Allowing for the fact that you are an obvious sock,


    Interesting. What makes you think that?

    > would you like to post links to this "fanboy" posts from Erik? I
    > have never seen them. It strikes me that all he does is point out
    > the lies and stupidity of the likes of Mark Kent, Roy and Terry "The
    > Big I Am" Porter.
    >

    Uhuh.

    I guess you missed Erik's "Powershell blows all Unix scripting
    environments away".

    Troubles with your reading comprehension? Or memory troubles? Or are
    you just plain *stupid*?

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast