Kevin Nathan wrote:
>
>
>
> Here's why I couldn't update my OS today at home and at work. Just
> thought you might enjoy reading it:
>
> http://news.opensuse.org/2008/10/10/...s-are-located/
>
> They have some interesting photos, too . . . :-)

And that was just the moment I wanted to show two friend sof mine how
easy Linux was compared to Windows. :-(
Well, once I rememberd to use a mirror, all was well. There were some
other complications. We needed to move some data.

The problem was that he should have known how his own network worked and
he didn't. He wanted to work with Samba. I have zero knowledge of
Windows networks, so I had no idea what to configure.

My idea was to basically just open port 22 on the Linux machine,
download an sftp client and be done. He told me this was not possible,
because it was a Windows 8 server and could not install or download any
program to his own PC, because it was too secure and his network was too
tight.

No idea how tight his network was, but using Filezilla, I could easily
connect to my machine at home. :-D

So my best guess is that he is full of bull. Everything I tried with
Linux that did not look for download.opensuse.org worked rght away.
Everything he tried did not work.

Even when I explained that an SFTP client is just an FTP program with
some extention, he started looking in the Windows Server 8 settings to
activate sftp and in OE looking at the settings there.

Worst things was that he did not wanted to listen and insisted that it
was not possible on his network, because of security issues. This while
I was ssh-ing from one machine to another. Idiot.

houghi
--
This was written under the influence of the following:
| Artist : Jethro Tull
| Song : Another Christmas Song
| Album : Rock Island

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:46:48 +0200, houghi wrote:

> And that was just the moment I wanted to show two friend sof mine how
> easy Linux was compared to Windows.

> So my best guess is that he is full of bull.

Presumably you want readers to draw their own conclusions from the
juxtaposition of these two statements?

J G Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:46:48 +0200, houghi wrote:
>
> > And that was just the moment I wanted to show two friend sof mine how
> > easy Linux was compared to Windows.
>
> > So my best guess is that he is full of bull.
>
> Presumably you want readers to draw their own conclusions from the
> juxtaposition of these two statements?

I did not write the post to let people draw anything. I was just stating
facts. Any conclusions you draw or want to draw are completely up to you
or anybody else.

houghi
--
This was written under the influence of the following:
| Artist : Anastacia
| Song : Rearview
| Album : Anastacia

houghi wrote:

> And that was just the moment I wanted to show two friend sof mine how
> easy Linux was compared to Windows. :-(


my problem is i have so very little experience with Windows that i don't
actually know how it compares...well, from looking over the shoulder of some
friends i know it is SLOW..

--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.14, KDE 3.5.7, SUSE Linux
10.3, 2.6.22.18-0.2-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

DenverD wrote:
> my problem is i have so very little experience with Windows that i don't
> actually know how it compares...well, from looking over the shoulder of some
> friends i know it is SLOW..

That depends on the machine and the software, more then on the OS. I
find it a very complex system to use as an admin. Things are all over
the place and more complex.

What I miss most when working on my Windows machine is a good CLI. e.g.
I needed to edit several files. With CLI I can do it pretty fast. With
GUI I need to click and it takes me about a day.

This due to the amount of files. Doing it by writing a script, it would
probably take me 3 hours to make the script and then a few seconds per
day to run the script.

Oh well. I get payed and if they do not want to give me a tool to make
me more productive, it is their loss, not mine. :-D

houghi
--
You can have my keyboard ...
if you can pry it from my dead, cold, stiff fingers

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:29:33 +0200, houghi wrote:

>> > So my best guess is that he is full of bull.
>
> I was just stating facts.

So one must be careful to note that it is a fact that you made
a guess, but that the supposition of your guess is not necessarily
a fact and only your opinion.

> Any conclusions you draw or want to draw are
> completely up to you or anybody else.

The discerning reader will have already done just that.

houghi wrote:
> DenverD wrote:
>> my problem is i have so very little experience with Windows that i don't
>> actually know how it compares...well, from looking over the shoulder of some
>> friends i know it is SLOW..
>
> That depends on the machine and the software, more then on the OS. I
> find it a very complex system to use as an admin. Things are all over
> the place and more complex.
>
> What I miss most when working on my Windows machine is a good CLI. e.g.
> I needed to edit several files. With CLI I can do it pretty fast. With
> GUI I need to click and it takes me about a day.
>
> This due to the amount of files. Doing it by writing a script, it would
> probably take me 3 hours to make the script and then a few seconds per
> day to run the script.
>
> Oh well. I get payed and if they do not want to give me a tool to make
> me more productive, it is their loss, not mine. :-D
>
> houghi

here is what you need at work (make the company pay):

Hamilton C shell

--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.14, KDE 3.5.7, SUSE Linux
10.3, 2.6.22.18-0.2-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

On 2008-10-11, houghi wrote:
> What I miss most when working on my Windows machine is a good CLI.
> e.g. I needed to edit several files. With CLI I can do it pretty
> fast. With GUI I need to click and it takes me about a day.

Have you given PowerShell a try?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

It doesn't have perfect penetration into the Windows system yet (e.g.,
even with PowerShell you'll need to use the GUI for a lot of tasks), but
it's a solid foundation; and Microsoft clearly intends to expand it in
that direction, after having implemented Exchange 2007's administrative
toolkit on top of it.

Actually, I hate to say it, but PowerShell is a lot more advanced than
any of the popular command shells we have here on Linux...

--
Mark Shroyer, http://markshroyer.com/contact/
I have joined others in blocking Google Groups due to excessive
spam. If you want more people to see your posts, you should use
another means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/

Mark Shroyer wrote:
> On 2008-10-11, houghi wrote:
>> What I miss most when working on my Windows machine is a good CLI.
>> e.g. I needed to edit several files. With CLI I can do it pretty
>> fast. With GUI I need to click and it takes me about a day.
>
> Have you given PowerShell a try?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

I am not allowed to.

> It doesn't have perfect penetration into the Windows system yet (e.g.,
> even with PowerShell you'll need to use the GUI for a lot of tasks),


Let us look at what you say here and then ..

> Actually, I hate to say it, but PowerShell is a lot more advanced than
> any of the popular command shells we have here on Linux...

.... see what you wrote here. I then smile of the subtle sarcasm I almost
did not notice. You had me worried there for a bit that you were
serious.

But then 'advanced' does not mean better.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

On 2008-10-15, houghi wrote:
> Let us look at what you say here and then ..
>
>> Actually, I hate to say it, but PowerShell is a lot more advanced than
>> any of the popular command shells we have here on Linux...
>
> ... see what you wrote here. I then smile of the subtle sarcasm I almost
> did not notice. You had me worried there for a bit that you were
> serious.
>
> But then 'advanced' does not mean better.

Your snideness betrays your ignorance. If you define "better" in terms
of what the shell can do, and in how coherent, straightforward, and
reliable a manner it can do it, then PowerShell is unequivocally better
than traditional flat pipe-based shells. I suggest you take the time to
learn what PowerShell is, before you further embarrass yourself.

--
Mark Shroyer, http://markshroyer.com/contact/
I have joined others in blocking Google Groups due to excessive
spam. If you want more people to see your posts, you should use
another means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/

houghi wrote:
> But then 'advanced' does not mean better.

Well, I decided to look what was 'advanced' so I went to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...omputer_shells and looked at
what powershell has compared to bash.

The first thing of 'advanced' is that it is made 20 years later. I then
looked at things that the one had and the other did not.

What I see is basicaly that powershell has several more things included
then bash. That could give an idea that it is better. Up on closer look,
you see that these are things that are available on your avarage Linux
system anyway. I jusr compare with bash.

The list:
Floating point. Easily used with bc.
Scientific notation. bc.
Binary prefics. bc
Hash table. Unsure what it does, so not sure what the equivalent is in bash.
Spell Checker. Forgot the name, but they are available.
Multi-dimensional arrays. Indeed not available in bash.
Parallel assignment: Not available indeed.
Named Parameter: I use something like that in my scripts. However that
calls something else.
....

So even though many things are not native to bash, they are available.

And if you look at e.g. zsh, that has many of the things available that
bash doesn't.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

Mark Shroyer wrote:
> Your snideness betrays your ignorance. If you define "better" in terms
> of what the shell can do, and in how coherent, straightforward, and
> reliable a manner it can do it, then PowerShell is unequivocally better
> than traditional flat pipe-based shells. I suggest you take the time to
> learn what PowerShell is, before you further embarrass yourself.

Oh no, it is much more fun for the audience this way. After all, we are
just entertainers. Otherwise we would not just say 'X is better then Y'
and then point to the other that he has no idea, but instead make valid
points and proove that you are right.

You know, with examples and such. But this way is much more fun. People
like looking at monkeys trwoing dirt.

So here we go.
Bash is the betterst of them all and PoewerShell can notv even stand in
its shadow.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

houghi wrote:
> houghi wrote:
>> But then 'advanced' does not mean better.
>
> Well, I decided to look what was 'advanced' so I went to

My mistake reading the other post. I should have asked what HE thought
was 'advanced'.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

On Oct 15, 1:00*am, houghi wrote:
> So here we go.
> Bash is the betterst of them all and PoewerShell can notv even stand in
> its shadow.
>
> houghi

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which is better than the
other. Tool are only useful if they solve your problem.
Give PowerShell an try and it if solves your problem - happy happy.
If it doesn't, then it would be great if you could let
me know why it didn't so we can fix that in the future. In either
case, whether it is better than BASH or not is besides
the point.

BTW - the team are huge BASH fans and we have benefited greatly from
it and the other great work that has gone
before us. We honor their contributions to our collective culture and
benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants.
One point to make clear - that INCLUDES the superstar engineers that
worked on VMS and AS400 (not to mention
Perl and TCL) - those guys rock as well. If/when you use PowerShell,
you should be able to see the traces of these
great minds in it.

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

jsnover13@hotmail.com wrote:
> Give PowerShell an try and it if solves your problem - happy happy.

I am not allowed to run it at work. Blame my ICT department. It is not
the only tool that they deny me access to. Their loss, not mine.
I have no reason to run it at home and neither do I have the need to
run e.g. zsh or tcsh or learn perl so it won't be for me.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:20:24 -0700, jsnover13 wrote:
> In either case, whether it is better than BASH or not is
> besides the point.
BASH and TCSH do not have this pre-requisite:

Requires .NET Framework Version 2.0

What are the licensing conditions for .NET Framework software?

QUOTE

NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERSION OR
EDITION OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS NT 4.0 WINDOWS 2000
OPERATING SYSTEM OR ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO
ANY OF THOSE OPERATING SYSTEMS (each an "OS Product"), YOU ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU
HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

UNQUOTE

No GPL license, end of story.

> BTW - the team are huge BASH fans and we have benefited greatly from
> it and the other great work that has gone
> before us.

ah yes, Redmond 'innovating' as they do best: "benefiting greatly" by mimicking
the original work of others..

--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 2.0.0.14, KDE 3.5.7, SUSE Linux
10.3, 2.6.22.18-0.2-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

DenverD wrote:
> ah yes, Redmond 'innovating' as they do best: "benefiting greatly" by mimicking
> the original work of others..

That is what is called a 'low blow'.

houghi
--
You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of
sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of
imagination. Next stop, Usenet!

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:52:33 +0200
houghi wrote:

>The list:

>Hash table. Unsure what it does, so not sure what the equivalent is in
>bash.

Perl and awk for two. Think of a hash table as being an array with
named subscripts instead of numbered ones:

[
apples => 3,
bananas => -14,
kiwi => fruit,
...
]


>Multi-dimensional arrays. Indeed not available in bash.

Perl definitely. It's been a while since I've used awk, but I'm sure it
has them, too, IIRC. You can even simulate them with a little (a lot?)
of work in BASH scripting.

>Named Parameter: I use something like that in my scripts. However that
>calls something else.

Again, perl -- with Getopt::Long.


--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri and a.o.l.s. FAQ -- (temporarily offline)

Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.25.16-0.1-pae
8:23pm up 25 days 1:24, 18 users, load average: 1.42, 1.48, 1.10