Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows to Have Better CLI

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the stephenson's-going-to-have-to-annotate-the-article-again dept.

Windows 742

MickyJ writes "The command line interface to the Windows Server OS will be changed to the new Monad Shell (MSH), in a phased implementation to take place over the next three to five years. 'It will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years', so says Bob Muglia, a Senior VP at Microsoft." More from the Tom's Hardware article: "The language in Muglia's comment offers the first clear indication that WMI may be yet one more component being left behind, as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767492)

fp?.. that would be amazing!

Balls? (5, Funny)

Grave_Rose (715146) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767503)

Unix have no Monads.

Gr@ve_Rose

Re:Balls? (4, Funny)

DenDave (700621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767752)

And if they did, it would be GPL and probably be called....

Yep.. gonads...

GNU/Gonads...

gonads.org??

Finally (1, Offtopic)

joshdick (619079) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767504)

It's about cotton-pickin' time, for cryin' out loud.

Nice, but not earthshattering (2, Interesting)

typical (886006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767777)

IIRC, the main difference that MS is touting over traditional *IX shell environments is that pipelines can exchange typed data instead of simply text.

It's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure that I'd call it earth-shattering. This is an interface that applications need to support.

I think that the main way that they could offer value over the *IX world is by providing an lower-learning-curve-shell. Traditionally, this is how Microsoft has managed to offer value over Unix.

I'd like to see the *IX world get a fully-blown DAG-of-programs data stream processing environment, instead of just a linear pipeline. Gegl (the GIMP redesign) does this for graphics, but there's no reason that this can't be a feature that shells provide and something that works with data other than image data.

(Technically you can do this in Unix today with named pipes, which the Windows world sadly lacks, but it's not as nice and transparent as it could be.)

Actually, I guess you could do this with the mingw port of netcat in Windows...hmm...but even less transparent.

The shell that MS had for a while wasn't great, but the virtual terminal absolutely sucked. It was slow, laggy, required you to use the mouse for common operations, didn't follow accepted selection convention, hard-wrapped lines when copying text out of the thing, didn't grow the scrollbar as the scrollback buffer grew, lacks tabs, and about eight million other problems. That, I think, is one of the biggest things that they could improve.

Way to go! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767506)

"The language in Muglia's comment offers the first clear indication that WMI may be yet one more component being left behind, as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack."

1. Write complex management interface
2. Shore up security holes over many years of use and testing
3. Ditch for new immature code
4. ?
5. Profit!

If they're ditching WMI it *won't* be for security reasons.

Re:Way to go! (2, Interesting)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767557)

Number three could be expanded to: "ditch for new immature code which will take 3-5 years to implement new technology when completely workable alternatives exist and could be easily adapted." Should it really take a company with Microsoft's resources to take 3-5 years to implement a new scripting language? Are the permissions system that broken that it takes so much effort to plug the holes? Should I stop begging the question?

Re:Way to go! (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767719)

I expect it won't take 3-5 years to implement the language per se, but to make it mandatory from the point of view of users on one hand, and applications which need to interact with it on the others.

Bash takes account of the simple IO mechanisms that any Posix-ish OS has. If I wanted to switch over to ksh, I don't have to ovherhaul 'cat' and 'grep'. Same with going from CMD.EXE to this Monad thing.

Reading between the lines, this appears to be a lot more like Applescript. Because it's based on dot net, it could potentially interact with any number of software systems using some kind of IPC mechanism. I'm not sure the way this would be done in dotNet; maybe a low level mechamism would be similar to JNDI would be wrapped in some syntactic sugar.

Better late than .... (2, Insightful)

ThreatAdvisory (739109) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767513)

It is interesting that they are now trying to implement a command line competitive with BASH....what year is this again?

Re:Better late than .... (5, Funny)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767765)

It is interesting that they are now trying to implement a command line competitive with BASH....what year is this again?

The year is 1973. Apple Computations Inc. have just announced that they are switching to the cutting-edge Zilog Z80 architecture for their range of low-cost pocket calculators; Sony Industrial Consumer Electronics are making use of an innovative new Integrated Circuit for their Alpha-Max-3 video system which contains at least five separate transistors; the Duke Nukem Forever board-game has been given a favourable reception at the Entertaining Entertainment Exposition at the Crystal Palace, London, and now Micro-Soft-Ware are designing their new, BASIC-derived timesharing shell for competing against the burgeoning MULTICS.

Well, you did ask...

Re:Better late than .... (1)

curtisk (191737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767814)

Thanks, that was a fun read! Your post could've been short and sweet but you went and fleshed it out nicely!

Monad? Rather than... (5, Funny)

dyfet (154716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767515)

Because they couldnt get a full pair? I found the implications of the name too humorous to pass commenting on...

Monad .. Gonad (0, Offtopic)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767518)

Monad .. Gonad

Monad .. Gonad

doesn't that rhyme too well?

Gosh now that I have it in my head I hope I don't end up saying it at work.

Also, who here believes MSH actually stands for Microsoft Shell? I am sure MCSE's will be out there pronouncing it M-S-H.

Re:Monad .. Gonad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767627)

I thought it was MSH = Micro Soft Hell :-)

Re:Monad .. Gonad (1, Funny)

SonicBurst (546373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767632)

Well, to me, MoSH sounds best, but hey, I'm just a metal head.

Re:Monad .. Gonad (2, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767724)

Also, who here believes MSH actually stands for Microsoft Shell?

Who cares? MSH will be pronounced as "mash" and this will develop a related song for sysadmins to sing on Haloween:

I was working in the lab late one night
When my eyes beheld an eerie sight
For my server from his slab began to rise
And suddenly to my surprise

He did the MSH
He did the Microsoft MSH
The Microsoft MSH
It was a server smash
He did the MSH
It caught on in a flash
He did the MSH
He did the Microsoft MSH


Catchy, no?

Re:Monad .. Gonad (0)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767754)

Sorry - that third from last line should read:

It caught on like Flash

Re:Monad .. Gonad (-1, Flamebait)

pastpolls (585509) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767783)

Wow, funny.... but someone either needs to...

1. Get back to work
2. Get a job
3. Find a hobby

That is funny though, and very geek.

Re:Monad .. Gonad (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767728)

From dictionary.com:

mo-nad n.

1. Philosophy. An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz.

So it's a real word, and I can kinda sorta see why they chose it. I agree that it's unfortunate, though, and I think "MSH" (pronounced the obvious way) is a perfectly reasonable name.

Re:Monad .. Gonad (1)

NerdHead (35767) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767809)

I'm sure if there is a gnu version of monad at will be called gonad.

It's about time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767523)

Microsoft ignoring the command line is just as silly as ignoring the Internet. It's only taken them longer to realise because only power-users and sysadmins are affected instead of every user.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767788)

Well tell that to the Apple Fan Boys. They still think that the CLI is an option that, "well if you don't like the desktop, the CLI is __STILL__ there." As if the GUI is somehow a "preferred" environment.

Until they realize that the CLI is the most important component in a UNIX environment, I would expect them to stop calling their platform UNIX.

Re:It's about time (3, Interesting)

selderrr (523988) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767799)

what I find the strangest, it that they need so much time to develop it... they have such a pile of cash, and have used it before to pump out software at breakneck speeds (and actually break their neck as with internet explorer) to crush competitors. The fact that this CLI will take so long to develop means that either they don't take it seriously and won't invest big bucks, or means that they take it very seriously and don't want to screw it up again. but even in the last case : the proposed planning is a very careful one

Next Slashdot Headline (5, Funny)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767525)

Next Headline on Slashdot:

Microsoft Pushes Back Longhorn Until 2008 Over New CLI and Changing of "My"

vaporware (4, Funny)

mattdm (1931) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767532)

Bah:

"...will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years. It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver."

Somehow I'm not too worried.

Re:vaporware (5, Informative)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767563)

It's not "vaporware"; It actually exists. You can get in on the beta for free.

http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channel 9.MSHWiki [msdn.com] - How to sign up

Re:vaporware (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767608)

** It's not "vaporware"; It actually exists. You can get in on the beta for free.**

why does it take 3 to 5 years to develope it to exceed what has been shipped with linux for ages then?

Re:vaporware (1)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767653)

Because progress takes time? Stop shooting the messenger. *straps on kevlar*

Re:vaporware (0, Offtopic)

miscGeek (594829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767784)

grins wickedly, and ejects clip of normal rounds, inserts clip of kelvar coated rounds....

Re:vaporware (2, Interesting)

mattdm (1931) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767631)

It's not "vaporware"; It actually exists. You can get in on the beta for free.

Yeah, I actually looked at some of the sample code before posting. The "vapor" part is the in-three-to-five-years-this'll-be-better-than-Unix claim -- right now, from what I've seen, they would have been far better served to go with bash. (Excepting of course their license issues.)

Re:vaporware (2, Interesting)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767702)

right now, from what I've seen, they would have been far better served to go with bash.

What makes you say that? My (limited) understanding of Monad is that it can do UNIX-style text piping and regular expressions and awk and all that candy in addition to the object-oriented stuff.

And the object-oriented stuff shows some potential. Being able to pull data from a pipe much more easily (e.g. without a regular expression). Much saner sorting. Blah blah blah.

This is what the impression the Channel 9 demo video gave me, at least.

Re:vaporware (2, Insightful)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767582)

Even if it's not vaporware, I have a hard time believing what Unix and Linux have had available to them via bash, csh, etc over all these years will somehow be trumped by some new shell created by Microsoft of all people in no time at all.

Right, because endless feedback, coding, feature requests, bug squashing, and use of the *nix shells for how many years now isn't worth anything.

Open mouth, insert foot.

Re:vaporware (2, Insightful)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767648)

Yes, I totally agree. Linux/UNIX shells have been developed, tested and improved by hundreds (thousands?) of people who use them repeatedly every day over the course of more than 20 years. How the hell is MS going to make something superior in 3-5?

Re:vaporware (4, Insightful)

Eric604 (798298) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767693)

Because they can rip off Linux/UNIX shells that have been developed, tested and improved by hundreds (thousands?) of people over the course of more than 20 years?

Re:vaporware (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767815)

Now come ON!

Don't we all know the answer to this yet??
After years of the same pattern we certainly should.

They'll make a better one by COPYING that app that's been
refined over 20 years and adding pretty colours!

Re:vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767672)

Not to mention Tcl/Tk, which is a simple scripting language for actually drawing windows and graphics.

And Plan 9 had actual network access via devices you can access from the command line; I saw a simple script that actually implemented a subset of FTP.

I don't think there's much else you can do from the command line, and I don't expect that we're going to be really impressed with this new Microsoft Shell.

Re:vaporware (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767800)

That's because you're another stupid slashdot fuck who can't see past his own nose, mainly because there's tons of linux propaganda goo in your eyes.

Re:vaporware (1)

Eric604 (798298) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767642)

Worried? It would be great. Finally a nice CLI in m$win. It's however a strange development process, a CLI should be of a higher priority than pretty colors and more "advanced options" buttons.

Re:vaporware (0)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767708)

My sentiments exactly , Microsoft can go to sHell .. then id be impressed

Re:vaporware (1)

kinkie (15482) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767756)

Why should you be worried? Were Microsoft to develop the best CLI ever conceived, it wouldn't take bash, tcsh or zsh or whatever is your shell of choice (pick your flavour, I'm not going to start a war here) away from you (and me and everyone else).

So best luck to them, and may life be less painful for our fellow Windows sysadmins!

AAAAARGH (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767534)

the subject says it all.
If someone is interested in killing off all those people who create all the FUD... please do so with my blessing.

[wdw]

Hmm... (2, Insightful)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767535)

Now, I don't know much about this but I do have a few questions. What all will this be likely to change? Also, once the biggest company in the world uses it, how will it be so secure? If so many people are using it, arent they more likely to find problems with it? Or am I just uneducated?

So Apple IS faster.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767537)

They change their entire platforms over 2 years, and MS will spend 3-5 years changing the default shell? :p

On the other hand... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767538)

"...the first clear indication that WMI may be yet one more component being left behind, as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack."

and introducing a new avenue of attack.

Re:On the other hand... (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767705)

Of course. After all...if you're not learning you're losing ground. Crackers need to have new challenges just like everyone else. It only makes sense for a company to work to keep the interest of their biggest market segment...

So what does this really mean? (1)

ctonchev (678043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767547)

I mean I know we want windows to be more secure, but Microsft hasn't exactly got a stellar record of having new replacements be more secure than older ones. I have a feeling that this wil be exploited before it can go gold. WHile I think it is a step in the right direction, I don;t think its enough

ooooh (3, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767553)

In only 3 to 5 years, they'll be able to develop technology that's better than what exists today? What innovation!

How about announcing great new technology that actually works today?

Re:ooooh (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767675)

You obviously missed the CLI Clippy announcement, or Typpy as he is to be now known.

Re:ooooh (1)

pegr (46683) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767692)

Actually, if you look at the logic from what MS has said, they just admitted that UNIX shells are better that Microsoft shells. They have promised something better, but that admission by itself reveals the depth of fear-and-loathing they have for UNIX.

Sorry your shot of cash to Bay didn't work out better for you, Bill*.

(*Not really...)

Re:ooooh (5, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767750)

The beta has been available for sometime now [msdn.com] - apparently you need Win2003 or .Net v2 for it to be installed.

From someone I know who uses it:
  • Very slow, but the scripting was sweet, though not as compact as unix
  • Reminds you of a bastard child of unix+VMS
  • You can write commands in C#, kinda like servlets where you can extend a base class
  • It's an OO way of doing things, but unlike Perl/Python which are screenscrapers, Monad scripts can pipe out and pipe in objects - and everything happens through typed vars, not screenscraping.

Better than Bash? (2, Insightful)

AnriL (657435) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767556)

Better than Bash? I guess they'll be using Zsh then. :-)

Better than cmd.exe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767579)

Clearly he mean better than cmd.exe -- a real accomplishment there...

As if... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767567)

Microsoft can't even deliver a multi-user OS. Even their most advanced server (their data center server ) is still single-user.

They've been saying they are going to deliver things better than Unix for the last 20 years yet somehow they can't

Those who do no understand *nix are doomed to repeat it.... In a shallow, bloated, insecure and doomed manner.

Cheers,

Nick

Re:As if... (-1, Troll)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767733)

When you are a monopolist, you don't have to deliver, you only have to say you will deliver. Kind of like a presidential election to reelect a dictator. Not a lot of substance.

microsofts gonads hell (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767571)

I just can't get into another name that is so close to sex acts. Not only does microsoft 'fuck you', they also 'blow goats' and windows 'sucks' and now you gotta do your manual handy work on their 'gonad shell' Right Beavis?

Windows already has an excellent CLI (5, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767580)

...you just gotta go download it from here. [cygwin.com]

Let the jokes begin! (0)

Zuke8675309 (470025) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767581)

sed 's/g/m'

Re:Let the jokes begin! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767790)

Uh... don't you mean

sed 's/m/g'

Thought so ;)

Vaporware (1, Insightful)

joschm0 (858723) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767593)

we are changing the command line environment in Windows using a new object-oriented command line technology, code-named 'Monad,' that will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years. It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver

In other words, this is vaporware.

Re:Vaporware (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767749)

It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver

...which is about right for getting an entire probe to the outer solar system up and running from design to acceptance. But a shell? what's it suposed to do?

Most projects which take this long are doomed, especially if they really need to take six months.

Not that I cam going to use MSH, but I stll hope it doesn't wind up being designed by a committee. Shells have to have a certain emergence about them which is hard to design in up front.

DEC made this mistake with DCL. Their previous effort (MCR) was a nice, elegant shell. Seven years after I stopped working on VMS, DCL still makes me glad to be working in unix.

Re:Vaporware (1)

BreadMan (178060) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767780)

>> object-oriented
The standard pipe-model for bash is OO enough for me. Each object has an execute method, two file descriptor objects with a read method and one file descriptor with a write method. We've overloaded just about all combinations of >,,|,&,[0-9] to produce operators to make sure the right methods get invoked when we string together a group of objects. It works too.

No Kidding! (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767822)

For once I wish Microsoft would stop the "This is the most important blah blah", or "It will exceed blah blah!".

If there is one thing that Microsoft has proven in the last five years is that they CANNOT exceed what is on the market! I am a big fan of .NET and code in it daily, but .NET is NOT taking away marketshare from the Java market.

I wish FOR ONCE, they would develop something and stop the damm hype machine! People critque how long it takes Open Source to finish a product. Frankly Microsoft ain't doing much better!

News? (1)

akzeac (862521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767597)

Yes, but news? [slashdot.org] There's even a beta already.

What's the Betting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767598)

This won't make Longhorn (like everything else apart from the fisher price upgrade) and will end up as a module like WinFS, Indigo, Avalon...

I refuse to use it! (5, Funny)

Roofus (15591) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767604)

Unless I can get transparent terminals. That is what really holds back MS in the server market. I mean, how useful is a shell unless you can see through it?

Re:I refuse to use it! (0, Redundant)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767661)

Things like that are novelties that keep people interesting in writing it. Transparent shells have little actual use [and waste resources] but look cool and give you braging rights.

Tom

Re:I refuse to use it! (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767798)

Bla Bla Bla waste resources. Did you ever look at the system monitor and see what the difference in resources are if you have a transperant window is?
I havent seen any difference. Transparent shells are acutally quite usefull. When I am reading documents on how to install a program I never installed before I usually have the webpage open and when I am typing in the text I can see the Website threw the shell and make sure I am typing it in correctly. (because I am a bad speller it is usefull) also it is quicker to type then cut and paist a lot of the time. espectilly when you need options that may be on the screen but not part of the example.

Re:I refuse to use it! (3, Funny)

akzeac (862521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767720)

True transparent terminals? I'm still waiting for those in Linux!

I've already got one, you see...? (2, Funny)

rrognlie (79008) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767607)

And it's vera nice!

Can you say bash from cygwin?!? thought you could

Cut/Copy/Paste (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767630)

You mean a CLI that you can cut, copy, and paste to/from? Innovation!

About time MS got on the fucking ball in terms of CLI.

Re:Cut/Copy/Paste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767730)

You've been able to do that for years on NT. You just have to turn on Quickedit in the command shell's property page.

Re:Cut/Copy/Paste (1)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767742)

You always could cut/paste in the NT/Win2K/XP CLI.

Re:Cut/Copy/Paste (2, Informative)

ssj_195 (827847) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767743)

You can already copy from/ paste to Window's default CLI (highlight text and press ENTER to copy; right-click to paste - same with cygwin). I don't know about cutting, though.

hot damn. (1)

Vodak (119225) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767633)

I do not care about the PR spin being put on this announcement it is a really good thing for Microsoft. The thing I hate about administering a Windows server is that I have to run their terminal services in order to get remote access.

I am on dialup. A good command line interface for remote support? All I can say is HOT DAMN.

Re:hot damn. (1)

jam3s (857730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767698)

Isn't that what WMI and ADSI is for? So that you don't have to use TS and to support low-speed connection maintenance. Or are you maintaining servers that are running operating systems more than 5 years old?

Anyone else (1)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767637)

See monad and think that it's going to be an emasculated, one testicled command shell that no real man would ever touch out of a jealous regard for the family jewels?

Re:Anyone else (1)

Loonacy (459630) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767795)

... So they're targeting the female gender for their CLI?

What the fuck (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767641)

Everyone who read the Wikipedia article on Longhorn, or indeed on Monad has known about this for a long, long time.

BAT files! (0)

millwall (622730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767655)

You insensitive clod! What's wrong with MS-DOS batch files??

REM I STILL USE BATCH FILES!
diskcopy a: b:
if errorlevel 1 goto error
echo disk copied
goto end
:error
echo diskcopy has failed
:end

Legacy DOS vs Unix'ish (1)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767666)

Is this the death of the legacy DOS commands that we have all used?

Will the c: conventions be replaced (or simply aliased) alias d:='mount /dev/hdb1 /mnt/cdrom' ??

or EVEN WORSE: will I have to swap all my "\" to "/" =)
Are they finally moving to A Better Place(tm) ?

I beta tested this thing (2, Informative)

stormcoder (564750) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767668)

It exists. Unfortunately, it is nasty to use. Commands are long and it makes heavy use of COM (So much for .NET). I have no doubt that it will be heavily exploited by virii and phishers. So I don't think bash is in any danger of being replaced.

Microsoft Shell (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767677)

Actually, MSH has been available for public beta (if you're enrolled in MSDN, anyway) for quite some time now -- I've been using it on my Windows XP box at home just to test it out. In general.. yes, it's actually quite good, and up to the standard of Bash for most tasks. It's a huge step away from the WinXP command prompt, and represents something of a climbdown for Microsoft, who said they would be moving away from the CLI in future OSes. In addition, it may amuse the /. readers (it certainly amused me) that the Microsoft names for commands have nearly all been aliased to their UNIX equivalents by default. Obviously, Bill doesn't expect his names to stick. ;)

I wonder what exeeds a windowed session over SSH2? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767680)

Don't you?

The more things change... (1)

MegaFur (79453) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767684)

". . . as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack."

...and replaces those portions with new bits that will no doubt be vulnerable to excitingly new and different forms of attack.

Those who do not understand UNIX.... (4, Interesting)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767689)

Isn't this just a case of: "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly". -- Henry Spencer.
Soon they'll be storing config in files, and have a CLI only version of their server.

Re:Those who do not understand UNIX.... (2, Insightful)

stormcoder (564750) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767766)

Soon they'll be storing config in files, and have a CLI only version of their server.

An this is bad, how?

Yeah, but (2, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767694)

Microsoft has never "gotten" regular expressions, and I doubt they're about to. Also, there's still the silly reliance on the file extension to tell the operating system how to handle a particular file.

Monad (in italy). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767699)

in italy, (in a particular dialect, in a region called "Veneto" (do you know Venice ?)), monad(a) means bullshit.

exceed how? (1)

necromcr (836137) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767700)

It will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years

Will they use T9 predictive input? Or maybe vbscript - oh, sorry - vbscript.net for the actual shell? Maybe RemoteDesktop with extra feature of rendering console properly so you can do your shell "stuff" remotely.

MS-DOS is back (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12767710)

Is Microsoft going to release MS-DOS v8? I thought they claim Windows does not run over DOS since win95 :-)

So much for an unresponsive monopoly (1)

Surur (694693) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767716)


MS's strength historically is being responsive to threats, and to match competitors feature to feature.

Whether this will work against open source software (which ultimately costs nothing, meaning by slow erosion it will eventually take over) remains to be seen. Maybe the next move will be free software (as in speech and beer).

Surur

About all these monad/gonad jokes... (3, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767722)

For all the 13-year olds on /. who think they're funny, here's where the word monad really comes from [newadvent.org] .

Forward, not backward (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767737)


"The language in Muglia's comment offers the first clear indication that WMI may be yet one more component being left behind, as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack." ...to new portions of Windows architecture that will soon be vulnerable to malicious attack.

Understanding Unix... (1)

yogix (865930) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767739)

'Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.'

-- Henry Spencer

Competition and interest (2, Insightful)

ratboot (721595) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767751)

It's good to see competition and interest in this domain, it means :

- More power to the Windows sysadmins
- Push the evolution of some of the apparently stagnant Unix shells
- This time see a difference between major versions of Bash (I mean I use Bash everyday and didn't see a difference between 2.x and 3.x, I mean a big difference).
- ...

strcpy, providing root to hackers since 1972!

MSH: QuickRef (4, Informative)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767770)

A quick list of functions and examples, looks very Bourne.

http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channel 9.MSHQuickStart [msdn.com]

Its about bloody time.

VBS is a peice of crap, and is way to complicated for what should be simple tasks, MSH looks pretty damn promising.

MS says BASH rocks? (1)

Deternal (239896) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767774)

Indeed they note it will take them 5 years more to make a proper CLI even though they started in 2001.

Kinda makes you think about how much windows is lagging behind unix on the serverside of things.

Too similar to perl (2, Insightful)

drspliff (652992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767779)

So.. I wanted to know what the language could do, what it's feature set were etc. so I went to the quickstart guide at the MSH Wiki site ( http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channel 9.MSHQuickStart [msdn.com] ).

IMHO this looks a lot like perl, but with enough changed so people dont start looking through their code for 'Copyright (c) Larry Wall'... This is real innovation.. whatever.

Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't Microsoft just develop stronger Windows bindings for Perl? It's battle hardened, already widly known and documented around the work.. not to mention you would ge the benifit of CPAN for additional modules (Would you trust Microsoft to write your date manipulation functions? hah!)

And we all know somebody will work out how to run MSH code from deep within some other subsystem-by-proxy and inevitably cause another wave of virii (by this time Microsoft will be touting it's anti-virus software etc.)

Oh the end is neigh, the sky will fall, etc. etc... I'll just shut up now and get back to some work.

random current cmd gripes (4, Interesting)

kisrael (134664) | more than 9 years ago | (#12767817)

There are two and a half things that bug the hell out of me with the current CLI:

1. The tab completion behavior (the 'half' part of my 2 1/2 gripes is sometimes you have to fiddle with a registry setting to turn on tab completion). A unix shell (well, the one I'm used to, not even sure which) will complete only up to the point where its unique, and then I can hit Ctrl-D to see possible completions. A lot more predictable than tabbing through all completions that might fit what you've typed...the distinction between "characters I typed myself" and "characters showing up because I'm cycling through" has no visual cue, even though it completely controls what files get shown.

2. up arrow behavior. It took me a while to finally "get" the logic of Windows...if you type command A, then command B, then command C, then arrow back up to B and run that, pressing down will then take you to C and up will take you to A. I think that it's meant to cover a long sequence of commands that you do over and over, so you don't have to keep uparrowing, but just pressing down once per repeated command, but its much harder to keep a mental model of.

Both of these things are classic Window's trade off of predictability for perceived "user friendliness". I think hackers often prefer predicitability and ease of mental modeling, since they can always make it easier by some scripting or whatever.

On the other hand, I like that I can add "\.." to the end of a filename and get to its directory. That's something that seems logical to me that Unix shells don't generally do.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?