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!

Next-gen Windows Command Line Shell Now in Beta

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the shelling-out-for-a-new-command-line dept.

Windows 668

Suddenly_Dead writes "Microsoft's new command line shell, MSH or Monad, has entered the beta phase. Channel9 Wiki has information on how to download this (complete with Guest ID), and other related info."

cancel ×

668 comments

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

Yes, but (0)

cc-rider-Texas (877967) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856416)

...can I switch shells to Bash inside it?

No Thanks (2, Insightful)

md81544 (619625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856419)

Does this remind anyone of the old quote:
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly

I'll stick with bash or ksh, thanks very much. But thanks for trying.

Re: No Thanks (2, Insightful)

Transcendent (204992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856433)

I'll stick with bash or ksh, thanks very much. But thanks for trying.

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows? This is for their own OS, not unix.

So to answer your question... no... it doesn't remind me of that quote, because it has no relevance to it.

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856446)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows?

Yes.

Re: No Thanks (5, Informative)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856452)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows? This is for their own OS, not unix.


Of course it does, silly [cygwin.com] .

Re: No Thanks (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856476)

Yes, cygwin makes common Unix shells available on windows, but it's just a CLI. It doesn't interact with the rest of windows, the registry, other user space apps, etc. It's basically just a way to interact with your file system... Monad is a big step ahead for windows...

Re: No Thanks (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856504)

Yes, cygwin makes common Unix shells available on windows, but it's just a CLI. It doesn't interact with the rest of windows, the registry, other user space apps, etc. It's basically just a way to interact with your file system... Monad is a big step ahead for windows...

Talk about proving the quote right.

That's all bash is. That's all it does in linux too. You use other programs to do the work, bash is simply an interface to the file system. And a damn elegant one at that.

Re: No Thanks (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856453)

### Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows?

Sure they do, like almost all Unix software, either via the full blown Cygwin or via the more lightweight MSYS.

Re: No Thanks (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856456)

Try Cygwin. And Monad doesn't run on all Windows platforms, unlike Cygwin. It would only work on LH and XP (if they decide to port it back).

The OP is trying to say that they are reinventing Unix with LH, evidenced by the new virtual folders, file permissions, new scriptable shell and so on.

Re: No Thanks (1)

ryants (310088) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856459)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows?
Yes [cygwin.com]

Re: No Thanks (1)

Phil John (576633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856461)

Yes they do actually, ever heard of the cygwin portability library/distribution.

Because of that I have all manner of unix/linux/bsd utilities that have been recompiled for windows. I can diff, patch, make, ./configure, gcc, vi(m), emacs, bash, ksh, lynx, wget, scp, ssh and even use x.org to my hearts content. It's a good compromise when you have to stay on windows for one reason or another.

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856462)

It does remind me of the quote. And bash/ksh are available, granted it's through cygwin whose installer woes continue to bite my balls. I will be downloading Monad to test it out, as I love me my shells! Kinda interested to see how fucked up the XML pipeline action is.

Oh and btw, zsh rules, bash drools!!!!!

Re: No Thanks (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856463)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows?

As a matter of fact ... [cygwin.com]

Re: No Thanks (2, Informative)

PyWiz (865118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856465)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows? This is for their own OS, not unix.

Actually, yes, it does. Ever heard of cygwin [cygwin.com] ? You can run a host of linux tools and shells on there including bash and ksh. I use it on my home computer so I don't have to continually reboot my computer just to use gcc or something of the like when I'm on Windows.

Re: No Thanks (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856466)

I guess you've never seen bash [wanadoo.nl] or ksh [att.com] for Windows then.

Re: No Thanks (1)

FrankNputer (141316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856467)

Ok, but does bash or ksh run on windows? Actually, they do. Now go outside & play.

Re: No Thanks (2, Funny)

SourKAT (589785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856503)

With the number of replies you got, don't you feel just a little bit stooooopid? You do know that Life's like a box of Chocolates, don'tcha?

Re: No Thanks (3, Interesting)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856531)

Why is everyone immediately saying cygwin? Windows Services for Unix is the official release of ksh for Windows.

Re: No Thanks (1)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856551)

Damn, beat me by a minute.

Re: No Thanks (1)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856533)

Yes; to add to what others have said, Microsoft even distribute (pd)ksh as part of Services for Unix [microsoft.com] ; see "Robust Scripting Environment" on this page [microsoft.com] .

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856474)

Only on Slashdot could such a pathetically stuck-in-the-70's post get modded up 'insightful'. I bet your the same kind of person that would say 'Spotlight? I'll stick with grep, but thanks for trying'.

Re: No Thanks (5, Insightful)

lazy_arabica (750133) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856489)

Why do the unix zealots always dismiss ANY attempt to make the user experience more high-level / semantic-oriented (especially if it comes from Microsoft) ? I am a Unix-user, but I'm also very interested in MSH, some of its features sound really innovative and powerful. I'll probably stick with bash too though, until Unix becomes deprecated (because I don't think it will ever evolve, since so many people, like you, think the perfection has been invented 30 years ago.)

Re: No Thanks (1)

md81544 (619625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856532)

I don't think perfection will ever exist; I'm simply quoting from my experience. I'm a programmer who uses both UNIX (AIX/Solaris AND Linux) as well as Windows. And the only way to write decent scripts on Windows is via Cygwin (see many responders to my original post).

I'd welcome something brilliant in MSH but somehow (given their lack of creativity) I'm not holding my breath. Love and Peace and all that - I'm not interested in flame wars.

Re: No Thanks (2, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856543)

He's not talking about Unix per se when he says "Unix"; you should instead read it as "the Unix Way," which will not likely end up deprecated for a long time.

Re: No Thanks (0, Flamebait)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856563)

kill -9 that one. Parent post doesn't make sense.

It got modded up because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856590)

Because the ability to use a CLI demonstrates a true understanding of what's happening on the computer.

And remember Unix came about because of the failures of Multics - an operating system that tried to be everything to everybody. Sound familiar?

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856511)

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

See the sad state of the Linux Desktop.

That explains Midcrosoft, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856530)

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

Well, now. That explains every damn thing Microsoft has done the past two decades or so, now doesn't it?

Re:Wrong (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856568)

Those who do not understand MacOS are condemned... no, hang on, those who do not understand Xerox Alto are condemned..., etc.

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856521)

I'll stick with bash or ksh, thanks very much.

Yeah... Nice unique golden scepter there, too bad you're holding up two of them.

Re: No Thanks (1)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856538)

Um...parent should be modded troll, not insightful. What, Microsoft isn't allowed to develop their own shell based on what those who will use it (mostly /. types) think a shell should be?

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856559)

In fact the idea is great and linux besides the kernel is much a bloatware just because it is so much command-line dependent. If i could (lack of money not lack of skillz), i would extend this idea not just by use objects but by assembling together algorithms with default configuration and functional scripting (ie if you use X trigger you can't use Y one) as single functions available in linux just like library functions from c like cmdline. This would allow to build eg. iptables command which could be executed in cmd-line (stdout = text) just like original one with even same wrapped arg names, text-gui like alsamixer and x-gui. And OS would interprete scripting on-fly (and i mean binary compiled ones, not like xml human-readable but GHz-killing ones), leaving programming GUI/parsing cmdline unnecessary for programmer. This would be goodbye for bloat (maybe up to 10% of all cmdline tools is analyzing of it's arguments and dc-gui like crappy tools appear just because it's easier to do it this way). But in a perfect world...

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856578)

what

Re: No Thanks (1)

TheAncientHacker (222131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856586)

Ah, yes. The classic conceit of those with tunnel vision: Anyone doing anything different is only making a bad attempt to do what I already know...

Grow up sheeple, the world really didn't begin and end with Unix.

Re: No Thanks (-1, Flamebait)

md81544 (619625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856591)

I'm sorry to reply to my own post, but, ARE YOU MODERATORS ON CRACK???? This is not flamebait, this is personal experience.

I don't think perfection will ever exist; I'm simply quoting from my experience. I'm a programmer who uses both UNIX (AIX/Solaris AND Linux) as well as Windows. And the only way to write decent scripts on Windows is via Cygwin (see many responders to my original post).

I'd welcome something brilliant in MSH but somehow (given their lack of creativity) I'm not holding my breath. Love and Peace and all that - I'm not interested in flame wars.

Re: No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856605)

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

And those who refuse to evolve beyond Unix are condemned to live in the past. But that's OK, the past can be a comfortable place. Enjoy your stay. Meanwhile, some of us are moving on.

That's all well and good (0, Offtopic)

DarkIye (875062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856421)

The question is, who would really be interested in it at all?

Re:That's all well and good (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856441)

The question is, who would really be interested in it at all?

Well, Windows network admins? Say what you will about Windows, most of it's true. But lot's of serious companies use it, and some of them even hire smart people to admin their systems. Could be usful for something like that, maybe.

Re:That's all well and good (1)

msuzio (3104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856490)

Actually, I think something like Applescript for Windows would be awesome. It's a very Unix-like way to get apps to work together, it could make Windows a lot more flexible for many people's needs.

Re:That's all well and good (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856580)

Windows Script Host (often with VBScript) is "something like AppleScript". Almost exactly alike.

Personally I don't think that either WSH or AppleScript are very Unix-like -- both rely on higher-level IPC and complex datatypes, not text and pipes.

It seems like Monad is trying to be a halfway point between a Unix-like shell and a scripting language. This might have something to do with the programming ability (or lack thereof) of those who admin Windows systems.

Re:That's all well and good (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856555)

Windows network admins?

How about Windows users? Some of us work non-IT specific jobs that still heavily involve computers. Whether the IT department supports it or the company, Windows is often the only option for power users without IT priviledges to run something like CYGWIN while at work. If Monad scripting is half as powerful as even Slashdot readers think, it would be a great improvement over current Windows working conditions.

As for home... /me shrugs, got bash and perl for scripting.

Re:That's all well and good (2, Interesting)

Kafteinn (542563) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856517)

The question is, who would really be interested in it at all?
The more power to the user the more power to botnet controllers!

One spyware infested crazy windows zombie machine botnet to rule them all!

Microsoft will continue to make unsecure software but this time with a way for the botnet controllers to actually do something with the botnets.

Re:That's all well and good (2, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856523)

People who uses windows, obviously. Most of Microsoft users do not analize what they use - they just use it, and they've though that buttons are better than scripting just because Microsoft has been telling them that for years. Now that microsoft says scripting is useful, they'll think it's useful. They don't know if scripting is "good" or "bad", they're not CS people (and even if they are they may be clueless) so they think whatever they're told to think

Re:That's all well and good (5, Insightful)

CaroKann (795685) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856535)

A windows shell, without the various limitations of the DOS shell, would be very useful in more ways than I can count. For example, DOS .bat files are still used a lot, especially in cases where you want to run an application, like a Java based program, with it's own system environment setup.

Lots of people are "bashing" this up agianst various Unix shells, but what does it matter? Windows needs something like this, period.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856422)

FiRsT pOsT!!!!!!111

Here's a Screenshot (5, Funny)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856426)

Here's a Screenshot:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>


Re:Here's a Screenshot (3, Funny)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856472)

Damn, and I was sure they would finally ditch the concept of drive letters this time!!! *Sarcasm*

What I'm wondering... (1)

trezor (555230) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856494)

Does this new shell have a 'ln -s' command? I guess not, since no reports (I've heard) of the filesystem have mentioned symlinks.

Did I mention how much I hate not having symlinks in Windows? A new usuable shell is all dandy, but I'd like symlinks as well.

Re:What I'm wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856570)

Use cygwin or msys. You get fully functional symlinks, hard links, fifos, domain sockets and some device nodes too :)

Some things require NTFS, but most stuff works even on Win98.

Re:What I'm wondering... (2, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856581)

Windows has had symbolic links since Windows 2000. It was called junction points.

In XP it was renamed as reparse points.




Re:Here's a Screenshot (1, Informative)

TheAncientHacker (222131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856560)

I have no idea what the previous text was but it wasn't the Monad Beta 1 shell. Actually, a real screenshot looks like the following and the concept of drive letters is not really used:

Microsoft Command Shell
Copyright (C) 2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

MSH>_

Re:Here's a Screenshot (1, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856500)

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>


Here's a better screenshot, showing the most useful of all Windows shell commands:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>FORMAT C:

WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK
DRIVE C: WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N)?y

Checking existing disk format.
Verifying 40,960M
Format complete

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)?

42,949,672,960 bytes total disk space
42,949,672,960 byttes available on disk

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit.
65,505 allocation units available on disk.

Volume Serial Number is 3745-19F5

C:\> bwahahaha!
Bad command or file name

GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856430)

Gay Niggers are my friends! Why do fireworks die?

Fireworks (-1, Offtopic)

daniil (775990) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856562)

Why do fireworks die?

Because of their vanity. They're all so very vain, just like the Remarkable Rocket [gutenberg.org] . But vanity is a sin, as God doesn't like vanity (he's rather full of himself, that God). Fireworks die, because God kills them for their sins.

This is what Microsoft has been "fighting" for! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856431)

A command line. How innovative!

Re:This is what Microsoft has been "fighting" for! (1)

Klar (522420) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856493)

I just finished reading "In the Beginning... was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson. If you haven't read it, it is worth the read. After reading it, it made me want to throw away my windows box, and stick with my linux box, heh.

Here's a quote that I thought fit this article. "The cosmic operating system uses a command line interface."

This is fantastic news. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856434)

Windows gets more and more like Linix every day. At this rate, I soon won't be able to cut-n-paste between applications! Bring it on. Have they ported xcdplayer yet?

Monad? (5, Funny)

Deal-a-Neil (166508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856437)

What kind of name is that? Sounds like a command shell that had one testicle removed.

Re:Monad? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856451)

Oh! How very funny. Then I suppose you do need an idiot to post a testicle joke every time a story about Monad is posted.

Re:Monad? (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856460)

Maybe Miguel will do a port and call it Gono

Re:Monad? (2, Insightful)

jockm (233372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856473)

And all it took was a simple search to come up with the answer [wikipedia.org] .

One shell to rule them all...

Re:Monad? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856510)

I'm not sure where they got that name from, the beta site has displayed "Microsoft Command Shell" since it was put up a long time ago. Anyone know where the name Monad comes from?

As a side note, MSH rocks! The idea that everything is an object that can be piped elsewhere is simple yet adds a world of power.

Re:Monad? (1)

gnarlin (696263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856579)

Is that sarcasm? I have stopped being able to tell anymore due to to much exposure.

Re:Monad? (3, Funny)

QuestorTapes (663783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856540)

Yeah, that name sucks. May as well call it Eunuchs. Oh, wait... ;>

Most names people make up for products are stupid. This one might not even make it into release.

Re:Monad? (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856545)

Sounds like a command shell that had one testicle removed.

I'm guess it'sa joke on UNIX, the OS that had both testicles removed. UNIX++ ?

Re:Monad? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856597)

At least UNIX had testicles before MS was even thought of.

Re:Monad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856549)

Not to be left behind, Google has annouced the imminent beta release of Gonads.

In soviet russia, Gonads search for you!

I'll remain anonymous thank you very much

monad (5, Interesting)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856439)

It is , I beleive, the fist object oriented shell.

All the others use strings for piping.

Most *nix users i've seen writing online that tried it for a good while to really get used to it thoguht it was really good.

Re:strings for piping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856481)

once again, shells don't use strings for piping, it's binary data!
Ex:
bzcat linux-2.6.8.1.tar.bz2|tar xfv -
Is this text?
One can, if he want to, serialize object and use pipes.

PS : I know tar jxvf

Re:strings for piping (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856565)

that's gnu/tar buddy =)

Re:monad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856587)

Whoa, horsie! Users don't know what applications are "object oriented" in implementation, which are functionally programmed, and which are written in good ole procedural COBOL. You may have an issue with a lust for buzzword compliance. If you are talking about "shell as programming language", it's much more fun to not write code in shell and switch to Python ... or Ruby.

Next step... (0, Troll)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856448)

...is copy the kernel from *nix. On this world nothing is created, but all copied.

this is great news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856454)


hurrah for progress !!! lets make computers look/work like they did in the 1980's, i really did enjoy typing long cryptic commands into a monotone screen !!

1 step forward 3 steps back

I guess the site's running it .... (5, Funny)

SourKAT (589785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856455)

... doesn't have a web interface...

Visitors We are sorry but this site is experiencing difficulties at this time. Please return shortly! Thank you for your patience. Webmaster - please contact support as soon as possible.

Re:I guess the site's running it .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856571)

Here is the error I got by visiting. (Ha ha they must be trying to us MS windows as a server OS.)

We apologize, but an unknown error has occured in the forums.
This error has been logged.

Return to the previous page

I don't get it. (1, Funny)

thehfctech (679054) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856457)

Server Error in '/' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856515)

I went poking around a bit further before the shit hit the fan, and found this little thingy called "CrashNot" [winnews.com] (dunno if it's genuine, www.crashnot.com doesn't work), the self-styled Counter-Slashdot. It's a chuckle.

But I like the idea of a Bugzilla for Microsoft products.

DOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856464)

So, DOS gets a new face huh.

First impressions (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856469)

I've had it since yesterday.

My first impression - well, it will be fine for scripting, but as it stands it's appaling as an interactive shell - possibly slightly worse than cmd.exe as an interactive shell, and falling far short of bash/tcsh et al. The defaults for the commands seem way too verbose. If you're just passing objects around in a script that's fine - but for interactive use, it's just awful.

whoosh! (5, Insightful)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856470)

That was the sound of the point, flying past Microsoft's Collective brain.

The Unix shell is the implementation of the Unix philosophy of small parts working together. It's the antithsesis of Windows' philosophy of providing everything possible through DLLs distributed with the OS.

For a shell to be useful, you need lots of little tools. Otherwise you're just trying to provide an isomorphism to the GUI, with command line switches and arguments taking the place of check boxes.

On the other hand, I suppose it's better than nothing.

Re:whoosh! (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856506)

Haven't tried it, eh? It shows...

Re:whoosh! (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856572)

The Unix shell is the implementation of the Unix philosophy of small parts working together.

Which KDE, Linux, and Gnome have perserved so very, very well.

Re:whoosh! (4, Interesting)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856600)

All of these little "tools", Microsoft is providing. Take a look at the samples for MSH and you will that the commands are heavily inspired by Unix.

This tools are "commandlets." Being able to pipe .Net objects into mini applications with the full .NET framework available for use will be increadably useful.

I can see MSH being a HUGE improvment over Bash. For example:

MSH> get-process

(IMAGINE A PROCESS LIST HERE, OR SEE THE LINK... damn /. junk filter)

Want to filter that by virtual memory consuption?

MSH> get-process | where { $_.virtualmemorysize -gt 150000000}

(IMAGINE A PROCESS LIST HERE, OR SEE THE LINK... damn /. junk filter)

In Unix, you have to parse string output and all sorts of bullshit in order to access a data field of some conceptual object, but with MSH I will be able to simply access it directly in a type-safe way. That is a huge improvement.

See more here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2004/11/02.html

One Perl (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856482)

What's wrong with just running the Perl debugger, for an interactive shell? If the *nix shells were as limited in their reach into the OS APIs as the Windows commandline UIs have been, I'd use "perl -de 1" instead of bash or sh. As it is, I use that Perl shell for most commandline programming, especially for any data processing tasks. And a Perl shell has thousands of existing scripts, most of which work on Windows as well as any other platform, and are easily customized to script Windows apps. Even more, the Perl platform has lots of modules that embed programmable clients to Windows apps into scripts, and lots of scripts that bundle them together. Why not use old all-encompassing Perl, rather than the new, strictly limited Monad?

Re:One Perl (3, Insightful)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856574)

Why do the majority of 'out of the box' unix scripts run in plain sh?

Because in single user mode, or on a minimal install, that's all that guaranteed to be there.

One benefit to Monad. (3, Funny)

Deal-a-Neil (166508) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856488)

.. it won't be so startling when you get the blue screen of death, seeing that you're already in a text screen mode.

Anything would better! (3, Insightful)

toupsie (88295) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856491)

Trying to script using cmd, vbscript, wsh, wmi, adsi technologies compared to the userland in Unix systems for core system administration is a complete hassle. I have ended using Perl w/ Win32::* extensions and a lot of backticking and substitutions to get the job done. I will be looking forward to any improvements that Monad provides. I really hope that Microsoft looks toward BSD (Mac OS X) and Linux systems and takes to heart the ease that shell scripting in these systems provides. And for God's sake, make it easier to determine the IP address associated to a printer in a clustered virtual print queue! (Hint: you have to use an undocumented DLL that can only be found in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory in an unlit cellar with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard' section of the Resource Kit).

Re:Anything would better! (1)

bob@dB.org (89920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856573)

you have to use an undocumented DLL that can only be found in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory in an unlit cellar with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard'...
That's the display department!

Re:Anything would better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856601)

you dont have to write script in vbscript you can use ecmascript (with ms's extensions) which is also known as javascript and if thats good enough for Mozilla and the whole web it should be good enough for Windows use

but no lets keep re-inventing the wheel, over and over

Uh...dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856492)

I'm pretty sure about this one...

a whole day (-1, Flamebait)

codepunk (167897) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856496)

It has been released a whole day and no virus exploiting it yet? I bet the script kiddies are going to love the new functionality.

Or you could just download the release-quality one (4, Funny)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856501)

Here [cygwin.com]

Re:Or you could just download the release-quality (1, Troll)

nberardi (199555) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856556)

Not really based off the same ideas and comcepts. You should really try reading the wiki to better understand what Monad is about. Instead of building scrips through Perl or Python or whatever you use this is going to be centered around building "scripts" in .NET. I would encourage you to look more into this before you start opening your big mouth and downplaying something you know nothing about.

Wasn't it already in the beta? (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856509)

We've had two recent articles on it, and I know there was at least a third in the distant past.

And with as verbose as it is, you might as well use a compiled program, or go with Perl or Python.

I find it ironic (2, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856514)

how MS bashes linux, and yet is trying to become more and more like it...

Probably a very common business tactic, bash the competition and at the same time assimilate its best features, but still, poor style.

Re:I find it ironic (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856567)

how MS bashes linux, and yet is trying to become more and more like it...

It's a command line shell. Does *nix have an exclusive right on those? And, it's not much like *nix shells, except that it's command line... You talk an awful lot about "bashing", pal. Perhaps it is you?

Re:I find it ironic (1)

vcv (526771) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856569)

Try turning that around. Linux people bash Windows even moreso, yet have strived to become more like it. Please.. get over yourself. This is not for the average windows user at all. It's for sysadmins and geeks. It will become much more integrated to windows than bash or perl or anything, which will give it it's power.

Fan boys (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12856552)

Why is slashdot full of linux obsessed freaks

Fuck you all

Another screen shot (0, Troll)

Skiron (735617) | more than 9 years ago | (#12856596)

Here's another Screenshot: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\> cd /mnt/dvd C:\> ERROR. You do not have the rights to that as I see you haven't paid $750.00 or even got an ID card. C:\> Please run 'communist reporting tool' to fix this forever.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>