Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples - Linux ; On Nov 9, 8:19*am, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > > # 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 217

Thread: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

  1. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Nov 9, 8:19*am, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > > # 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.

    That's not what is going on. PowerShell has support for a WIDE range
    of mechanisms to manipulating the world.

    Our preferred mechanism are things we call Cmdlets (small commands)
    which provide high-level task-oriented abstractions with common
    behavioural semantics (like -WHATIF -CONFIRM -VERBOSE -ERRORACTION and
    -DEBUG ) and man-like help documentation.
    It is going to take us a while to get Cmdlet coverage for everything
    so what we do is provide additional mechanisms including the ability
    talk to WMI, LDAP (ADSI), XML, Web-Services, WS-MAN, SQL, COM, native
    code and .NET.

    The example shows how you can invoke a .NET class
    [System.Net.WebClient].


    > 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?"

    PERL, TCL, etc.
    PowerShell like those environments have little to no "native"
    functions but rather have an extensible "built-in" mechanism to
    dynamically load these functions.


    > 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.

    Exactly the same model - the difference is that in addition to being
    to pipeline to external processes, we can pipeline to builtins. We
    prefer builtins because it gives us great performance and it allows us
    to operate against objects without having to serialize/deserialize
    them. We can/do do that but it is expensive and you lose semantics.

    > 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.

    Yup- that's exactly correct. It is the magic of composition.

    > 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?

    You can repleace our built-in sort - pretty straightforward.

    When thinking about PowerShell, as a general rule, you can assume that
    was designed and implemented by people with Unix sensibilities. We DO
    do some things differently (usually for a very good reason [though not
    always - ha ha]) but I think you'd be comfortable with most if not all
    the decisions/approaches we've taken.

    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

    Mart van de Wege writes:

    > 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?


    Ask Willy.

    >
    >> 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".


    I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.

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


    Well, I use bash. But I would be interested to see a reasonable side by
    side comparision.

    >
    > Mart


  3. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples


    jsnover13@hotmail.com writes:

    > On Nov 9, 8:19┬*am, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> > # 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.

    > That's not what is going on. PowerShell has support for a WIDE range
    > of mechanisms to manipulating the world.
    >
    > Our preferred mechanism are things we call Cmdlets (small commands)
    > which provide high-level task-oriented abstractions with common
    > behavioural semantics (like -WHATIF -CONFIRM -VERBOSE -ERRORACTION and
    > -DEBUG ) and man-like help documentation.
    > It is going to take us a while to get Cmdlet coverage for everything
    > so what we do is provide additional mechanisms including the ability
    > talk to WMI, LDAP (ADSI), XML, Web-Services, WS-MAN, SQL, COM, native
    > code and .NET.
    >
    > The example shows how you can invoke a .NET class
    > [System.Net.WebClient].
    >
    >
    >> 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?"

    > PERL, TCL, etc.
    > PowerShell like those environments have little to no "native"
    > functions but rather have an extensible "built-in" mechanism to
    > dynamically load these functions.
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    > Exactly the same model - the difference is that in addition to being
    > to pipeline to external processes, we can pipeline to builtins. We
    > prefer builtins because it gives us great performance and it allows us
    > to operate against objects without having to serialize/deserialize
    > them. We can/do do that but it is expensive and you lose semantics.
    >
    >> 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.

    > Yup- that's exactly correct. It is the magic of composition.
    >
    >> 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?

    > You can repleace our built-in sort - pretty straightforward.
    >
    > When thinking about PowerShell, as a general rule, you can assume that
    > was designed and implemented by people with Unix sensibilities. We DO
    > do some things differently (usually for a very good reason [though not
    > always - ha ha]) but I think you'd be comfortable with most if not all
    > the decisions/approaches we've taken.



    Don't try to justify yourself in COLA. The fact that it runs on Windows
    is enough to condemn it. Funnily enough the hypocrites do not have the
    same standards for Firefox etc.

  4. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Kelsey Bjarnason belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > 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.


    What Erik said was something like this:

    "Powershell blows the doors off of any other shell out there."

    --
    Fried's 1st Rule:
    Increased automation of clerical function
    invariably results in increased operational costs.

  5. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:32:49 +0100, Peter K├Âhlmann wrote:

    >> 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


    Seems likely. At the very least, he shows a truly staggering ignorance
    of usenet.


  6. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 06:59:16 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > 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.


    No. Powershell can use COM, though it's not the preferred way to do
    things. It's just another option. You can compress files in any number of
    ways, including using the .net System.IO.Compression tools. or, you can
    use any command line compression tool if you like.

    > 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.


    Something that PowerShell can do as well, it's just not the preferred
    method.

    > 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.


    COM is not required. There are people working on porting Powershell to
    other OS's using Mono.

    >>> 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.


    No, i'm merely defending my opinion against people who claim otherwise.

    >> 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.


    Ahh the "out of the box" argument again. You always fall back on that when
    you have no other recourse. It's basically admitting you lost the
    argument.

    > 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.


    You don't need them. Powershell and .net have pretty much anything you
    might need.

    > 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.


    They're all built-in or .net functions. Powershell is a free download.

    > 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.


    The drivel comes first from the Linux advocates who say false things.

  7. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:19:14 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    >> # 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.


    Bull. Since .net is required for PowerShell, that function is always going
    to be there. It's like claiming that glibc is "shelling out" to another
    tool.

    >> 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


    cat and sort are external tools.

    > 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.


    Except sort itself, which is not part of the shell. Not that it really
    matters, since I have nothing against using such tools. It's just a point
    about how the shell itself is more powerful.

    > 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?"


    It's all part of the object oriented nature of powershell. It has
    functions to deal with objects, including sorting them, something you can't
    easily "shell out" to.

    > 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.


    Which means, learning the syntax of multiple tools, which all seem to have
    different quirks and issues.

    > 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.


    And since powershell uses heavy aliasing, you can do the same in
    powershell, just replace the alias with a different cmdlet.

    > 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?


    You can re-alias it to a cmdlet if you want.

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

    >
    > Yet you seem to have an issue with it.


    Not at all, it's just illistrative of the power of the shell itself.

  8. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Hadron wrote:

    > Mart van de Wege writes:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > Ask Willy.


    In other words, Hadron Quark, "true linux advocate" and "kernel hacker"
    (among a lot of other things he equally knows nothing about) makes
    outrageous claims and is unable to support them at all

    >>
    >>> 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".

    >
    > I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.


    Poor Hadron Quark...

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

    >
    > Well, I use bash. But I would be interested to see a reasonable side by
    > side comparision.
    >


    In the Snot Michael Glasser way? Discard all plusses of linux
    as "irrelevant" and don't count all minuses on windows side?
    --
    It is very difficult to prophesy, especially when it pertains to the
    future.


  9. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Peter K÷hlmann wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:


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

    >>
    >> I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.

    >
    > Poor Hadron Quark...



    Poor lying dumbkopf Kohlmann. Erik F. never said that exactly, or anything
    close to it. It's the lying swine in you making it up.

    So, in your own words, you're:

    * an extremely filthy POS
    * stinking vermin
    * useless
    * garbage
    * filth





  10. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    DFS wrote:

    > Peter K÷hlmann wrote:
    >> Hadron wrote:

    >
    >>>> I guess you missed Erik's "Powershell blows all Unix scripting
    >>>> environments away".
    >>>
    >>> I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.

    >>
    >> Poor Hadron Quark...

    >
    >
    > Poor lying dumbkopf Kohlmann. Erik F. never said that exactly, or
    > anything
    > close to it. It's the lying swine in you making it up.


    Message-ID: <1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>

    /quote
    The single most advanced scripting environment available
    for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    other scripting environment out there.
    /unquote


    > So, in your own words, you're:
    >
    > * an extremely filthy POS
    > * stinking vermin
    > * useless
    > * garbage
    > * filth


    As it was extremely easy to provide the reference of Erik Funkenbuschs
    idiotic claim, you will neck yourself now, right, DumbFull****

    It is difficult to imagine how someone like you has managed to reach age 13
    without being beaten to bloody pulp

    --
    I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
    slightly used clues.


  11. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Peter K÷hlmann wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >>> Hadron wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> I guess you missed Erik's "Powershell blows all Unix scripting
    >>>>> environments away".
    >>>>
    >>>> I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.
    >>>
    >>> Poor Hadron Quark...

    >>
    >>
    >> Poor lying dumbkopf Kohlmann. Erik F. never said that exactly, or
    >> anything
    >> close to it. It's the lying swine in you making it up.

    >
    > Message-ID: <1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
    >
    > /quote
    > The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of
    > any other scripting environment out there.
    > /unquote
    >
    >
    >> So, in your own words, you're:
    >>
    >> * an extremely filthy POS
    >> * stinking vermin
    >> * useless
    >> * garbage
    >> * filth

    >
    > As it was extremely easy to provide the reference of Erik Funkenbuschs
    > idiotic claim, you will neck yourself now, right, DumbFull****


    My apologies. I didn't see any such quote in the current thread.



    > It is difficult to imagine how someone like you has managed to reach
    > age 13 without being beaten to bloody pulp


    It's difficult to imagine that your wife hasn't slit your throat while you
    slept.




  12. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    [snips]

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:33:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >> 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.

    >
    > Bull. Since .net is required for PowerShell, that function is always
    > going to be there.


    Yet you yourself admit it's not part of powershell. Since the whole
    point was to show off powershell, I'm still waiting. Yes, fine, we've
    seen what .NET can do, we don't care. Let's see what PowerShell can do.

    If all it can muster up is being a thin layer of VBscript capable of
    calling .NET, then it's about as tired a piece of junk as you can get.

    >> No shelling to other scripting _environments_? Easy:
    >>
    >> cat file.txt | sort > outfile

    >
    > cat and sort are external tools.


    >> 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.

    >
    > Except sort itself, which is not part of the shell.


    Sorry, where's the shelling out? You have to run your PS script to do a
    job, I'm running the tool that does the same job directly.

    Sorry, but if you get to run a cli tool - a script - I get to run a cli
    tool. 'Course, mine doesn't have all the overhead of the scripting
    engine, parsing, linking 97 million screwball interfaces and the like,
    but hey, that's kinda the point, ain't it?


    > Not that it really
    > matters, since I have nothing against using such tools. It's just a
    > point about how the shell itself is more powerful.


    Because you have to run a script, whereas I run an executable. Ah, yes,
    it's so obvious now.

    >> 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.

    >
    > Which means, learning the syntax of multiple tools, which all seem to
    > have different quirks and issues.


    Well, golly gee, imagine that - invoking sort isn't going to work exactly
    the same as invoking tar or gzip. The fact they do different things
    might have been a clue.

    Another clue might be the fact that this methodology has been working
    quite well for, oh, 30 years, whereas Microsoft hasn't come up with a
    functional CLI environment *yet* - even PS is being doled out in drips
    and drabs.

    Oh, yes, definitely the winning horse there - 30 years late and lame in
    three legs, to boot.

    >> 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.

    >
    > And since powershell uses heavy aliasing, you can do the same in
    > powershell, just replace the alias with a different cmdlet.


    Alias? WTF? Who is dicking around with aliases? Oh, I see, you're
    adding *yet another* layer of crud to be interpreted, parsed, linked,
    sorted out and yet another layer of things to go wrong, whereas I've got
    a nice little standalone executable. Yes, the improvement in the
    PowerShell way is just screamingly obvious.

    >> 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?

    >
    > You can re-alias it to a cmdlet if you want.


    No, I want to replace the built-in sort. You know, as in the existing
    sort code/binary simply *no longer exists*. Why do I need the old crud
    crufting up the computer? No, I want it *gone*. So again, where exactly
    does it reside and how, exactly, does one replace it?


  13. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    In article <2chju5-h57.ln1@spanky.work.net>,
    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > [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.


    Your snips removed important context. It was Terry Porter saying "We
    just ignore Wintrolls". Terry's definition of "Wintroll" seems to be
    "anyone who knows more about Windows and/or Linux than he does, and
    dares to point out any error of his".

    Under that definition, the *only* people Terry can reduce ignorance from
    are "Wintrolls".

    --
    --Tim Smith

  14. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, jsnover13@hotmail.com belched out


    >> Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    >> Windows PowerShell 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

    >
    > Who called in the Big Gun?


    Fuddie probably sent the Vole an emergency telegram, telling them that
    the Munchkins know squat about PowerShell, and Sweaty then sent a memo
    to the department head looking for a volunteer to do damage limitation
    and "evangelism" for a couple of days.

    A similar thing happened during the lead-up to the OOXML DIS 29500, if
    you recall (a Jesper Lund Stockholm and Miguel de Icaza tag team).

    I think this proves beyond doubt that the Vole monitors Linux channels
    and anything else connected with Free Software and Open Standards, and
    therefore they do indeed feel threatened by it, and that the threat is
    significant enough for them to actually pay their staff to troll those
    channels.

    QED.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    22:46:21 up 4 days, 6:29, 3 users, load average: 0.05, 0.09, 0.08

  15. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > Which simply accomplishes what I already said: vendor lock-in. *As the
    > code gets tied ever more tightly to a non-portable API set, the code
    > becomes ever less portable to a different platform. *Which is exactly
    > what MS wants, which explains why they released PS with support for all
    > those other goodies, but with an incomplete cmdlet set - "Yes, sure, well
    > get those eventually... long after you've invested so much in using
    > custom APIs that you'll never bother with the cmdlets anyhow and, more to
    > the point, you'll never even consider moving this code to another system,
    > as you *can't*. *We win."
    >

    way to go, kelsey, that is exactly what PS is all about. another ploy for
    Microsoft to use on developers that are ignorant enough to use their
    products. vendor "lock in" is a game that microsoft knows all too well.

    any "nix" programmer would see the farce for what it is within miniutes of
    using PS

    notice how quick microsoft was to send a employee into this group to defend
    the FUD.

  16. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:03:50 -0500, none of your buisiness wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >> Which simply accomplishes what I already said: vendor lock-in. ┬*As the
    >> code gets tied ever more tightly to a non-portable API set, the code
    >> becomes ever less portable to a different platform. ┬*Which is exactly
    >> what MS wants, which explains why they released PS with support for all
    >> those other goodies, but with an incomplete cmdlet set - "Yes, sure,
    >> well get those eventually... long after you've invested so much in
    >> using custom APIs that you'll never bother with the cmdlets anyhow and,
    >> more to the point, you'll never even consider moving this code to
    >> another system, as you *can't*. ┬*We win."
    >>

    > way to go, kelsey, that is exactly what PS is all about. another ploy
    > for Microsoft to use on developers that are ignorant enough to use their
    > products. vendor "lock in" is a game that microsoft knows all too well.
    >
    > any "nix" programmer would see the farce for what it is within miniutes
    > of using PS
    >
    > notice how quick microsoft was to send a employee into this group to
    > defend the FUD.


    I have to agree, awesome PowerShill analysis Kelsey, thanks for the time
    and effort for your huge followup.

    Funkentroll is off his head if he thinks any Linux user is going to
    stick their feet back in the MS tarpit, just because he can't get out.


    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  17. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, jsnover13@hotmail.com belched out

    >
    >>> Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    >>> Windows PowerShell 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

    >>
    >> Who called in the Big Gun?

    >
    > Fuddie probably sent the Vole an emergency telegram, telling them that
    > the Munchkins know squat about PowerShell, and Sweaty then sent a memo
    > to the department head looking for a volunteer to do damage limitation
    > and "evangelism" for a couple of days.
    >
    > A similar thing happened during the lead-up to the OOXML DIS 29500, if
    > you recall (a Jesper Lund Stockholm and Miguel de Icaza tag team).
    >
    > I think this proves beyond doubt that the Vole monitors Linux channels
    > and anything else connected with Free Software and Open Standards, and
    > therefore they do indeed feel threatened by it, and that the threat is
    > significant enough for them to actually pay their staff to troll those
    > channels.


    Dumbasses (that includes Linonut of course). There have been several
    PowerShell threads and discussions in cola over the past year.




  18. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:47:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:50:27 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >




    >>> They're all built-in or .net functions.

    >>
    >> PS is built-in? Bull****.

    >
    > Are you a ****ing idiot?


    No Erik the Wintroll, Kelsey is no idiot, in fact Kelsey possesses the
    kind of mind that when focused, sets morons like you on fire quite easily.

    I've still got the burn marks from when Kelsey focused on me several
    years ago.

    Unlike you tho, I soon realised *I* was the ****ing idiot.


    It's a shame Kelsey has wasted 1 second of his life responding to you,
    because you are a stunted low life Wintroll of the most underwhelming
    kind.





    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  19. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:57:06 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > [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.


    I'm sitting back here, clapping for Kelsey, like one might the actors in
    an outstanding play.

    What a classic line Kelsey, it just has to go into my sig!

    --
    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.
    Kelsey Bjarnason C.O.L.A 2008

  20. Re: Windows PowerShell vs. bash examples

    Hadron writes:

    > Mart van de Wege writes:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > Ask Willy.
    >

    No, I am asking you. What makes you think I'm a sock?

    (This could get fun).

    >>
    >>> 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".

    >
    > I guess I did. Please post a link to him saying that specifically.
    >

    Peter already did.

    So yes, you *are* irretrievably stupid.

    Mart

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

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