What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch yeah, I looked it up and MS said it wasn't the update to 5.1 but was a separate product. Out and available, but not in the upgrade path.
Fully updated Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
PS7 will be based on a newer .NET, and because of the different paths, it may not be so soon that PS7 ships with Windows, but it will.
It will be PowerShell 7. No powershell 7 and powershell 7 core. The "core" will only exist in technical specs.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
That would look very different from BASH, and isn't typically a thing you would do with BASH. That isn't apples to apples.
Sure, but no need to do that since we have apples to apples SHELL comparisons, not comparing tasks called by the shells.
I don't agree. They are two differen't tools built for different tasks.
I know they CAN do many things that produce similar results and outputs, but they are different tools designed to deal with different things in different ways.
That's just a misleading way to say that they have the same job and one is designed well and one is designed poorly. They are both for identical tasks. One just shines and one obviously pales. Yes, they DO things differently, but their ends are meant to be the same - systems management. That their means differ is the only reason that they are worth comparing. If their means didn't differ, they'd both be bash.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I don't agree. They are two differen't tools built for different tasks.
That makes no sense. If that is true, then you are saying that PowerShell is a abject failure because the only reasonable task of assuming it was for system management is not what it is for. Why does it exist then if not to be the "bash" everyone has wanted for decades on Windows?
Of course they are apples to apples, they serve identical functions in every way.
How do you get a .NET object or create a Windows form with BASH? Different worlds.
-
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How do you get a .NET object or create a Windows form with BASH? Different worlds.
Means. This is why this discussion isn't making sense. You are confusing what the goals of teh two products are with how they do them. You are showing that PowerShell is so bad that you are no longer thinking of it as a function tool, but rather are so caught up in the "means" that it uses that you are seeing the means themselves as an end.
If that is true, you've defined PowerShell has pointless and worthless. It exists only to exist and not to serve any function.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
It will be PowerShell 7. No powershell 7 and powershell 7 core. The "core" will only exist in technical specs.
But if PS truly has no purpose for existing....
-
I contend that PS has a clear purpose, and is just not well made. That's a million times better than having no purpose at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How do you get a .NET object or create a Windows form with BASH? Different worlds.
Means. This is why this discussion isn't making sense. You are confusing what the goals of teh two products are with how they do them. You are showing that PowerShell is so bad that you are no longer thinking of it as a function tool, but rather are so caught up in the "means" that it uses that you are seeing the means themselves as an end.
If that is true, you've defined PowerShell has pointless and worthless. It exists only to exist and not to serve any function.
PowerShell is a systems management tool, just like BASH is. But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
Yes, you may want to get the uptime of a Windows and Linux system. But the underlying components of what holds that data together is different, meaning one tool needs to have a different design to deal with a different system.
-
Think of it this way...
"What is the function of Java?"... To create software.
"What is the function of C# .NET?"... To create software.
"What is the function of BASH?"... to administer operating systems.
"What is the function of PowerShell?"... to create objects makes no sense in any context. It can create objects, so can F#, VB or Python. But that's not a goal or a purpose. It's just an under the hood artefact of how it is attempting to accomplish its job. -
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
PowerShell is a systems management tool, just like BASH is.
Right, so at the goal level, they share a function. That they approach it differently is fine. That one approaches it in a way that makes it fast, flexible, powerful, and simple and the other in a way that makes it convoluted, slow, and less flexible determines the quality of them.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
-
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But the underlying components of what holds that data together is different, meaning one tool needs to have a different design to deal with a different system.
That's not how programming languages work. CMD can get uptime from Windows, so can BASH. And both can do it faster than PowerShell can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
PowerShell is a systems management tool, just like BASH is.
Right, so at the goal level, they share a function. That they approach it differently is fine. That one approaches it in a way that makes it fast, flexible, powerful, and simple and the other in a way that makes it convoluted, slow, and less flexible determines the quality of them.
yeah, a bucket and a water balloon both share a function too... to hold water.
The same arguments can be made here. The bucket holds water better, but for a different system than for what a balloon holds water for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But the underlying components of what holds that data together is different, meaning one tool needs to have a different design to deal with a different system.
That's not how programming languages work. CMD can get uptime from Windows, so can BASH. And both can do it faster than PowerShell can.
I got uptime pretty damn fast in PS... I think faster than in BASH!
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
In that case, a bucket of water could be a shitshow too, because you have to be super careful to not spill any. Whereas with the balloon, you tie it off and can go running with it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
PS could have a place, but as a system admin tool it is so "heavy" and so slow and convoluted, I don't feel it has a place there. For decades before PS was released, the Windows community begged for a native port of Bash (we don't get one currently due to licensing restrictions) so that Windows could compete with everyone else (everyone else uses a Bash or similar shell, or at least offers it.) It would work fine, that CMD works guarantees it. Instead, CMD got effectively abandoned and the monstrosity of PS was created, almost to mock Windows users.
PS requires so much more experience and time to use, and in the end, you don't get more efficient than on other tools, you just start to close the gap.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
In that case, a bucket of water could be a shitshow too, because you have to be super careful to not spill any. Whereas with the balloon, you tie it off and can go running with it.
But you can carry more water faster.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
yeah, a bucket and a water balloon both share a function too... to hold water.
The same arguments can be made here. The bucket holds water better, but for a different system than for what a balloon holds water for.No, that's a shared means. They both hold water. but one does so for the goal of transport, and the other does so for the goal of a weapon. Means here match, but the goals are different.
BASH and PS share goals. 100%, identical goals. But completely different means.
