Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

519 comments

The true meaning of "msh" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13862970)

Everyone knows that "msh" really stands for "Microsoft Hell".

Re:The true meaning of "msh" (0, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863016)

And the forthcoming GNU version of Monad will be "Gonad" ?

HEy, before somebody mods this up, I'd like to defecate upon the dollar-spangled banner.

Re:The true meaning of "msh" (5, Funny)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863103)

Everyone knows that "msh" really stands for "Microsoft Hell".

And once people realize it is crippled there will be a gsh (Gate Shell) and a bsh (Ballmer Shell) as equally handycaped as the msh. A legal suit will follow from Google for gsh but the bsh will last.

Wouldn't it be easier just to get a copy of Linux and call it MS-Linux? I thought Microsoft thought all of UNIX/POSIX was crap and you didn't need a shell?

Re:The true meaning of "msh" (1)

xgadflyx (828530) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863272)

Sweet! Now when the GUI locks up I can just switch over the shell and type 'restart'

Who wrote the introduction? (3, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862974)

The "robust commercial applications and standard graphical utilities" are, indeed, in much need of reinvention. Oops.

And what's with the "unleash" keyword? Do these people really think in terms, that glossy ads use to compare the advertised products with animals?

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (2, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863006)

Not only that, but consider the portion that says 'The Windows community is a universe of uniformity [...] and standard graphical utilities.'

Indeed, we are seeing that that is not the case. Microsoft has gone out of their way to drastically alter their GUI, such that it looks nothing like the XP GUI, and thus nothing like the older GUI before that. Hardly a show of uniformity, if I do say so myself.

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (5, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863114)

Are you talking about the new Vista UI?

In that case, that's a visual style that's changing only the aspects of the UI Windows XP changed. Windows border styles and new flashy button hover effects, etc. Think of it as a different theme/skin, not a way for them to change the UI design guidelines. "OK" will still always be followed by "Cancel", group boxes will still group UI elements with a relation, menus will still be part of the applications and not the dsektop, combo boxes will still be recommended only in "little space" situations, and so on. :-)

Actually, Microsoft has released preliminary design guidelines for Vista [microsoft.com] , and I was surprised to see how much can be directly applied, and is even recommended to be applied like that, to Windows XP.

Also, even in Windows Vista, just like in XP, can you still apply the Windows 2000 look & feel via a flip of a switch. That if anything should show that all they're really doing are mostly just applying new skins to sell their product, and not coming up with new guidelines that indeed would alienate their broad customer base. If I'm at some user that have applied some simple settings, I often lose myself in thinking I'm working on a Windows 2000 workstation when I'm in reality on XP.

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (5, Informative)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863188)

There's far more of a difference between Windows XP and Windows 2000, then just a graphical skin. The methods for accessing a handful of configuration settings windows has altered and in some cases, those configuration modules have changed significantly on their own.

    To say that there won't be changes beyond simple "Graphical skins" simply does not hold with the historical perspective of the sweeping changes with each major iteration of Windows.

    Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to WindowsMe, there were underlying configuration changes that made learning the "new" OS important.

    Windows NT 3.5 to Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP also included significant configuration setting alterations that were far more drastic then the "Consumer Level" Windows Operating Systems.

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863324)

Windows 98 to Windows ME? Come on, brother. You were doing good until then.

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863159)

So, what stops you from running in "CLASSIC" desktop explorer.exe shell usermode then?

* :)

(Nothing, correct? Just change the look of it IF the new look bothers you... it's always been this way in Microsoft OS' anyhow, thru XP/Server 2003 (which it defaults to anyhow on this version of the OS)).

APK

P.S.=> This SHOULD also be "doable" in Windows 'VISTA' builds as well, but I can't comment on it having used it first-hand (Windows Server 2003 user here, in workstation default install mode)...

As far as this new "MONAD" shell?

It will probably appeal greatly to those who are used to WSH/CSH scripting (using a VB-like model) no doubt!

Personally/myself??

I have always found that the std. cmd.exe command-interpreter shell is pretty powerful in combination with .reg file merges, its native commandset, & if needed? Microsoft's Resource Kit commandline tools, if not 3rd party ones you can find here:

www.jsiinc.com

By searching the keyword "freeware" there...

There's not alot you cannot accomplish with those toolsets alone imo...

Lastly/Worst comes to worst?

Writing up a console/charactermode/terminal app is NOT a problem with languages like Borland Delphi if needed...

(However, then you need to be more than just a network tech/administrator usually, & have "more serious coding skills" & understanding of the OS + the language tool you use in order to do this - most techs don't have that, & few admin types do)...apk

Thank you Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863260)

Thank you Microsoft for making a uniform GUI. We all have deep respect for the new Microsoft Command Shell and I feel that we all owe you a lot for letting us experience the joy that is Windows.

Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

Re:Who wrote the introduction? (1)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863358)

Actually that is just wrong. Have you even seen Vista? Still has the start button, taskbar, minimizing windows on it, systray, etc. MS changed the color scheme, added some mouse over effects, transparencies, and some additional things (e.g. side bar or whatever its called). But there is NO mistaking it for Windows, and although some tabs have changed, and features updated, its still the basic interface.

Quick! Open Source Monkeys Fly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13862979)

We must have a working implimentation of this shell in Gnome immediately.

I propose we call it Gonad.
It will be the dogs bollocks.

Re:Quick! Open Source Monkeys Fly (0, Offtopic)

Omicron32 (646469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863073)

Mod parent up!

Made my morning...

Better name: Gonuts (3, Funny)

dscho (819239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863305)

Title says it all

Oh, I am so excited! (1, Funny)

Almond Paste (838493) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862983)

Nevermind. Really, does anyone care about this? I mean a powerful command shell under windows is like a...hmm...like a....well it's like something!!!

Re:Oh, I am so excited! (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863004)

Yeah it kicks ass. unfortunately I do have code for both windows and linux. I hate having to use the current windows shell. So yeah if they get this right I for one will be stocked about it.

Re:Oh, I am so excited! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863138)

cygwin man

Re:Oh, I am so excited! (2, Informative)

bozho (676988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863168)

4nt/bash + cygwin tools + python/perl.

Re:Oh, I am so excited! (2, Interesting)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863049)

a...hmm...like a....

...massive security exploit waiting to happen.
I'll stick with DOS batch scripts, thank you. ;)

impressive (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13862984)

Indeed, that MSH demo is impressive and all, but python is great too. System-wide integration? Big fucking deal:
>>> import kudzu
>>> kudzu.probe(kudzu.CLASS_HD, kudzu.BUS_IDE, kudzu.PROBE_ALL)
[Desc: MAXTOR 6L040J2 Driver: ignore
Device: hda , Desc: ST360021A
Driver: ignore Device: hdc
, Desc: Maxtor 6Y120P0 Driver: ignore
Device: hde ]

etc, and python is easily expandible to cover ALL the system. What makes MSH rock is that it's a python-like programming languaje PLUS a user-oriented (user=administrator) shell like bash. In linux we're used to program scripts with python, then pass the data through pipes to bash to do something with it. Crappy. When you have to do things like "command | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | cut -d ':' -f 1" to get some data, you know something is WRONG.

The cool thing about MSH that its a SUBSTITUTE to bash/cmd.exe, not a "complement" like python is. Is not that bash or python are bad, but bash-like shells are 30-years-old unchanged technology. Fortunately, there're people writing user-oriented python-based shells, like http://ipython.scipy.org/ [scipy.org]

Re:impressive (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863066)

When you have to do things like "command | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | cut -d ':' -f 1" to get some data, you know something is WRONG.
Yes. Either your command is wrong (it should do that formatting as its output) or you should have used [g]awk instead of cut.

I take it you like python a lot? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863092)


Just a guess.

Re:impressive (4, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863121)

When you have to do things like "command | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | cut -d ':' -f 1" to get some data, you know something is WRONG.

Agreed. In this case it's the coder, who should really have enough nous to print the data in the format in which he intends to use it. That's hardly rocket science, is it?

Of course, if you didn't write the python script and don't have the time and/or skill to hack it, you might nd up using cut and the like to get the data in the format you need. The cool think about that is that it's possible. I don't know if the same can be said under MSH, but it seems unlikely - the focus of Monad seems to be .NET integration, not a stream based filtering command line environment.

Then again, maybe you didn't even write the wrapper script and don't understand anything. If so you can always troll slashdot as an AC and get some astroturfing in.

Re:impressive (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863320)

"Of course, if you didn't write the python script and don't have the time and/or skill to hack it, you might nd up using cut and the like to get the data in the format you need. The cool think about that is that it's possible. I don't know if the same can be said under MSH, but it seems unlikely"

Did you even open the article? MSH is significantly more powerful than cut. Bash can only dream of the features it has.

An open source clone? (4, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862985)

Has any project been started to provide an open source clone, similar to what the Mono Project has done with .NET?

Re:An open source clone? (1)

elwinc (663074) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863012)

Well, it's not a clone, but Python provides some pretty fine functionality. I'm not at all sure that msh is an improvement on Python...

Re:An open source clone? (2, Informative)

zootm (850416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863209)

They're similar, but not really the same. Python isn't geared towards being a command shell (although obviously after importing the right packages you can use it as one).

Re:An open source clone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863028)

Why waste the time?

Some Wise Man Said (4, Insightful)

R55 (601001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862987)

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.<br>
-- Henry Spencer<br>
Usenet signature, November 1987

Another Wise Man Said... (5, Interesting)

Dante Shamest (813622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863031)

A witty saying proves nothing.
- Voltaire

And so did another (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863255)

Neither does one that is said by Voltaire.
-Suso

Re:And so did another (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863352)

Thus proving Voltaire's saying is correct?

Re:Another Wise Man Said... (0)

MoogMan (442253) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863274)

Quotes are for fools
  -- Me

Re:Some Wise Man Said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863052)

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

The point is they've borrowed from Unix - but rather than pipe text that needs to be formatted and parsed between commands they're passing .NET objects which don't.

It's like Unix, but better.

Re:Some Wise Man Said (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863228)

"Unix is a junk OS designed by a committee of PhDs"
--Dave Cutler

Re:Some Wise Man Said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863258)

And then in 1989 he was proven right by a Mr Torvalds ...

Re:Some Wise Man Said (0, Flamebait)

HeroreV (869368) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863311)

And those who do not understand how to<br>
post on Slashdot are condemned to posts<br>
with markup scattered about.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

Google Shell (5, Funny)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862993)

The new google shell: Gonad

It's nuts

Re:Google Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863194)

I'm sorry :-) [albinoblacksheep.com]

Almost as good as . . . (2, Funny)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13862998)

Perhaps the Windows shell has finally reached the levels of goodness of that old shell, whatchyacallit. DOS, I think it was.

I forget what company it was that made that, but I'm sure if they were still around, they'd be doing amazing things. We can certainly agree that they'd without a doubt have a command line that would blow Microsoft's right out of the water.

Re:Almost as good as . . . (1)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863039)

Oops, I dual-posted, because I screwed up the forms and thought my first post didn't stick. This one was the one I didn't want, feel free to mod it down.

Crap.

Re:Almost as good as . . . (1)

red990033 (847260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863240)

Perhaps the Windows shell has finally reached the levels of goodness of that old shell, whatchyacallit. DOS, I think it was.

I forget what company it was that made that, but I'm sure if they were still around, they'd be doing amazing things. We can certainly agree that they'd without a doubt have a command line that would blow Microsoft's right out of the water.


That company was called "Seattle Computer Products". Microsoft didn't create DOS, they just licensed it to IBM - before Gates had even "bought" it. They are now defunct, but not before sueing Microsoft for a million bucks back in '86. Just goes to show ya, MS had crummy business practices from the get-go.

Here's the link. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Almost as good as . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863252)

I wish the Windows shell would be like DOS/360 too.

New website..... (5, Funny)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863007)

Backslashdot

Specializing in Unix bashing (somewhat of an ironic statement)

Jeez... (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863009)

the text-based shell is the nexus of computational control and the point at which proper articulation of will can transform commands into consequences Which leads to two questions : who wrote this shit, and were they getting paid per syllable?

Re:Jeez... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863256)

So... he's saying, "The shell is where you type things to make your computer do stuff"? Gee. Thanks.

Re:Jeez... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863284)

Yup.

Re:Jeez... (3, Funny)

revery (456516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863290)

Which leads to two questions : who wrote this shit, and were they getting paid per syllable?

It was the same person that wrote the dialogue for research breakthroughs in Alpha Centauri.

the text-based shell is the nexus of computational control and the point at which proper articulation of will can transform commands into consequences
- Col. Corazon Santiago Spartan Programmer's Manual

legitimately excited (1, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863011)

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Re:legitimately excited (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863278)

Which one do you mean? "Legitimate", or "excited"?

Almost as good as (-1, Redundant)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863018)

Have they finally reached the level of that old shell, whatchyacallit, DOS?

I forget what company it was that made that, but I'm sure we can all agree that if they were around today they'd be teaching Microsoft a thing or two.

(in all seriousness, I think a problem with Microsoft's approach to the desktop is that they've largely reversed the rule "graphics for getting information from the computer to the user, command line for getting it from the user to the computer")

Slightly Wrong... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863032)

Taken from "system requirements"Requires the .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 2 (x86) (see Related Downloads below).
Note that the "Supporting Operating Systems" list above is slightly wrong: the release is supported on Windows XP SP2, not Windows XP Embedded SP2.


Microsoft can't even get its own system requirements right... I someone expects a robust security infrastructure...

On The Pipe (5, Interesting)

Murmer (96505) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863062)

It's worth mentioning here that the real strength of the pipe is not "what you can pipe", but "what you can pipe things from, and to", and the fact that you can daisy-chain them together as far as you like. There are literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of little tools and widgets that you can pipe information into and out of to achieve various effects. Regardless of what new things the MSH pipe can do, the unix world has a significantly larger toolbox.

Re:On The Pipe (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863224)

The fact that UNIX has a larger toolbox is not so relevant when you consider that this is still pre-release — if it's a competent shell, it'll have equivalents to most of the useful functions available to the *nix world before very long.

Re:On The Pipe (2, Interesting)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863386)

True. But on the other hand it is much harder to write simple general purpose filters for generic objects than for text data. There are quite a lot of general purpose tools in Unix, like grep, sed, tail, etc. that can operate on almost any form of data, whereas MSH tools need to operate on objects, which is quite a bit harder. The potential for ultimate coolness is there, but if the implementation is lacking, MSH will be useless.

A shell is nice but... (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863070)

A shell is nice but, can you change all the settings from the command line? The fact that most of your settings are stored in the registry, makes things a lot harder to do from the command line. Sure you could probably change a key or two if you needed to. But you'd probably have to know the exact location. Browsing the settings, to find the key you want, would be a lot harder. Can you install most programs from the command line, and manage all your installed software from the command line. I like the fact that in Linux, most base system stuff is designed so that it can be done by the command line, first and foremost, I like the fact that Linux stores all the settings in text files. This means that you can change the setting with any text editor of your choice. Also, there is a huge library of tools available at the command line. Not just stuff that was thought up by the people who made your command line (bash, csh, zsh), but also anybody else who made just about any other utility.

You should've RTFA. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863161)

In it they show an example of walking the registry like a file system and changing values, in MSH. Makes your argument against the registry moot when you can change it from MSH.

This is just the beginning (5, Insightful)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863078)

Just a few days ago, there was another article on Slashdot [slashdot.org] about how Ballmer wants to "storm Linux." If they can convince *nix people that Windows has a powerful CLI, this will do much to suck them in... it is the "eye candy" for true geeks.

The article author starts to say this himself: My biggest frustration with MSH is the low quality of the actual shell interface. On my Linux system, I am extremely dependent on line editing keyboard shortcuts that simplify manipulation and alteration of command line input. MSH has very few line editing shortcuts, and extremely limited support for tab completion.

And I remember when CP/M [sysun.com] was all the rage... *sigh*

Re:This is just the beginning (0)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863162)

very few line editing shortcuts, and extremely limited support for tab completion.
Must've forgot to type DOSKEY :)

Re:This is just the beginning (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863219)

I agree. Sure a good syntax is vital for a shell, but it seems to me they have completely forgotten that a shell needs a good UI as well. I would have expected them to implement things like command-specific tab-completions, syntax highlighting, clipboard intergration, etc., but I guess MSH is really only meant for scripting, not interactive use. Shameless plug: If you're running Unix, you can try out fish [no-ip.org] , a shell which features all the above UI niceties as well as a cleaned up shell syntax.

Re:This is just the beginning (1)

thallgren (122316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863304)

Can't you just run it in a M-x shell? :)

Marketing sucks (3, Insightful)

Xarius (691264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863094)

Yet again Microsoft takes an age-old technology, like scalable icons or transparency, and turns it into the best thing since sliced bread? Shouldn't they be condemned for leaving it this long to release a tool as powerful as this, instead of praised?

The best I can say is "It's about damn time".

Yes, but.... (1, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863096)

...does it run Windows?

Reminds me of Python.. (1, Interesting)

chendo (678767) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863108)

When I saw this line:
msh> "this is a test".split(" ")
I immediately thought "Python" (although I realise this may apply to other languages as well).

Seriously... I can see a Python-based shell that can do what MSH can (named 'pash', possibly?). I respect the SQL syntax used and it could be useful, although I dislike the idea of using |s for this (no real reason... it just looks/feels wrong).

Another downside (for me) is that it's too verbose. I'm used to short commands like 'cat' instead of something like 'get-contents'. And the .NET implementation just looks really ugly, IMHO.

Just my two cents.

Re:Reminds me of Python.. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863201)

Javascript has syntax like that too

Re:Reminds me of Python.. (1)

Neeth (887729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863337)

(although I realise this may apply to other languages as well)

Indeed. It reminded me of the JavaScript shell as supplied by the Mozilla JavaScript Engine Rhino (http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ [mozilla.org] ). With it you can use the JavaScript and Java API's. Just like MSH can use the .NET API.

Re:Reminds me of Python.. (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863365)

I've seen a variety of language-based shells crop up in the past. For some reason the lisp/guile based one sticks out in my memory. They usually fade to obscurity pretty quickly as people realize that they can get their work done much more concisely with one of the older shells. It never usually seems like all that big a deal anyway, since bash doesn't restrict you to bash -- you can always throw together a python or ruby script to do some major chunk of work if you want to.

OS/2 had a pretty decent language (REXX) embedded in their command processor. Before that, most average users hadn't experienced having a useful language on their computer before. I found that people tended to push REXX about as hard as it could be pushed. Sure, there were better tools for a lot of the jobs they were doing out there, but REXX was free. So they used REXX. To be using OS/2 and REXX you had to be a bit of a tinkerer anyway, but I think that a lot of folks don't really realize that they can direct their computer's work if they so choose. Most of them would never bother to shell out for a compiler or bother installing an interpreter on their system, but bundle a tool with the OS and make a big enough deal about it and I'm sure a lot of people would start using it.

Re:Reminds me of Python.. (1)

ilitirit (873234) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863367)

Another downside (for me) is that it's too verbose. I'm used to short commands like 'cat' instead of something like 'get-contents'.

From the article:
MSH also includes an alias feature that allows users to associate additional names with available Cmdlets. By default, MSH comes with a complete set of aliases that bind typical Linux command names to comparable MSH Cmdlets, and an additional set of aliases that provide simple two or three letter abbreviations for most commands. In this article, I use the complete Cmdlet names rather than the abbreviations for the sake of clarity.

And the .NET implementation just looks really ugly, IMHO

IMHO, "ugliness" is an inherent property of shell scripting languages.

..C# (4, Insightful)

jkind (922585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863109)

Well it looks like C# will be alive and well for some time to come. This article definitely had the feel of Jesse Liberty's Programming C# OReilly book.
" MSH has a number of unique features that make it easy for users to leverage .NET technology at the command line. Type casting is an easy way to transform a simple core type into a .NET instance or another core type. To cast an instance into another type, simply place the name of the desired type in brackets right in front of the instance. You can change a string into a number with an int cast:
msh> [int]"5" + 5
10
"
is basically the section from the book on boxing and unboxing. Anyway, as a C# developer, it's great to see the language isn't dying..

The why (3, Interesting)

zxm (669276) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863122)

Finally, MS has understood that a powerful shell language is necessary for a modern operating system.

For a long time, it has been proud of his UI technologies, and thought the UNIX shells are too complicated to most people. As for the genernal people, it's right indeed; but it's not true for those developers that want to perform some customized tasks through some kind of relatively easy method.

The real problem is, Linux has been attracted more and more developers, it's absolutely dangerours to the Windows future. it must do something to change this situation, as a part of a series of actions according its plan.

Re:The why (1)

archen (447353) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863380)

MS may have understood that they need a powerful shell for their system, but once again they seem to have missed the point. Looking over all of this I saw this re-occurring theme that it looks like 'irb' (interactive ruby interpreter). MS hasn't really given us a shell, they've worked up an interactive programming language. Along with that they've essentially increased the complexity about 5 times.

If you look at a unix shell like bash it's extremely simple. The ammount of things that bash itself can do isn't all that much. People like to cite overly complicated shell scripts as the reason bash is bad, but the simple fact is that bash isn't really intended to do everything, and if it's too complex for your sell you are supposed to do it in a programming langauge. The flip side is that no one really needs to be crusing around their filesystem inside of a programming language; it's the wrong tool for the job.

So what I see is MS gave us an overly complicated shell that is basically a new programming language. It will lack the flexibility that has allowed the Unix shell to be so powerful after 30 years, and it will probably have all sorts of backwards compatibility issues by the next generation.

Unix shell argument parsing (3, Interesting)

murdie (197627) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863139)

>Unlike Linux command-line utilities, which contain their own argument parsers and output
>format mechanisms, MSH commands (called Cmdlets) all inherit a single base class, which
>ensures that all commands expose the same methods, parse arguments the same way

That's not entirely true about Unix (Linux): first, it omits to mention that Unix shells traditionally expand pattern matches in the given arguments, and match the command to an executable, before passing the arguments to that executable; and, second, everyone has used getopt(1) or getopt(3) (in whatever language) for years now, haven't they? (It's a common Unix newbie misapprehension to think that each executable has to expand the shell filename pattern matches in the arguments itself). These are a good start at maintaining command format consistency. I regret only that the original (Research) Unix didn't define which of: '-d -i' or '-di' and which of '-darg' or '-d arg' was preferable, and POSIX.2 (1991) appears (to me, glancing at it now) simply to have rubber-stamped the original situation.

Cygwin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863145)

'nuff said

Monad? (-1, Redundant)

connah0047 (850585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863151)

They are called it Monad? Is it just me, or is the first thought in anyone else's mind, "Gonad"?

Re:Monad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863195)

Do you still join Quake deathmatch servers and shout things like "hey everyone lets just use our axes!" thinking its really funny?

Re:Monad? (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863277)

Actually, for those people who don't care what others think about them, that is actually a lot of silly fun. Quake & Axes, Half-Life & Crowbars, etc - some of the most fun gaming I have ever had. Just because it may not be appealing to you doesn't mean that _no one_ likes it...

It looks good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863153)

But is there a GUI for it?

"Monad" eh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863186)

Will they be using >>= for the bind operator then?

doing it for? (5, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863197)

I didn't get very far into the article before they got to the "we do things for you" part. Maybe I'm alone in this belief but I absolutely hate it when a language/shell/application will do things for me.
For instance (from the article):

MSH features the typical data types found in most other modern languages: strings, integers, arrays, and hash tables. When you enter any of those kinds of values at the command line, MSH will echo them back.
msh> "blah"
blah
msh> 5
5
By comparison, in the Bash shell, expressions are always treated as commands and the echo command must be called explicitly if the user wants to display a value at the command line.


If I want an echo statement I WILL TYPE echo! I don't want the software to ASSUME (make and ass out of me) if I make a typo!

Re:doing it for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863268)

Typical of zealots mentality. They can't read a simple document past a few sentences before starting to make conclusion and give everyone an impression that they are talking out of their asses!

Re:doing it for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863307)

>If I want an echo statement I WILL TYPE echo! I don't want the software to ASSUME (make and ass out of me) if I make a typo!

Troll much, sgt scrub?

You just knocked the most basic feature of a command line interpreter: displaying the result of the command you just issued. One purpose is to let you inspect the result of various sub-expressions while you write your production file in another window. If you don't to see the result of each command, just write a file and run it instead. You'll just get the return value of the file (* plus whatever your script decided to send to stdout/stderr).

The question on everybody's mind : (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863214)

Will 'del C:\*.*' work?

ehh? (1, Troll)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863223)

Is this the very same commandline that was so cumbersome in Linux? Is it suddenly an asset just because its in MS Windows?

NIN Syndrome at its finest....

Re:ehh? (1)

jimijon (608416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863288)

NIN == Nine Inch Nail Syndrome????? rock on dude.

What a weird MiSHMaSH (4, Interesting)

Xthlc (20317) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863263)

I kill me.

Seriously though, the design of MSH is odd. Their hybrid of paradigms from functional programming and OOP is just weird and inconsistent. Having completely different syntaxes for invoking "Commands" and "Methods" is obviously a byproduct of trying to have both a traditional shell syntax and OOPy goodness, without thinking much about internal consistency.

Typical Microsoft: very use-case focused, at the expense of helping their users build a consistent mental model of how their system works. I bet it's pretty hard to do anything in MSH that its designers didn't specifically anticipate.

I'm surprised none of you have seen it. (1, Interesting)

crovira (10242) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863267)

Can you say 'copright violation/patent infringement law suit' AGAINST Unix command shell.

Microsoft is doing NOTHING that is new here. NOTHING that they haven't done before, that they couldn't do before and that anyone else couldn't do, better in some cases.

Why are they even mentionning this?

Look to the law...

What do they wish to lever this against? The Unix command shell. Is bash copyrighted? Is it patented? Watch for assaults on technicalities...

If the law is against you, argue the evidence.
If the evidence is against you, argue the law.
If the law and the evidence are against you, give the opposing counsel hell.

Microsoft bears close watching.

Tk (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863275)

From the article: Snover says that they have constructed an experimental set of Cmdlets that provide user interface construction capabilities inspired by Tk, but they don't plan to include those Cmdlets in the first major release.

Microsoft is catching up with Unix quickly! Soon they will have achieved the level of technology we have had for 15 years.

EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863281)

I WOULD NOT CARE WHAT OR HOW GOOD IT WAS

WINDOWS HAS SUCKED FOR A DECADE WITH A DOS COMMAND LINE..no more comment needed. everything they've done has been minimum of 5 years behind the times (nds,gonad...more like 30 yrs, the list is endless)

I GUESS THERE WILL BE NEWBS AND WINDOZE IDIOTS WHO WILL
FAINT WHEN THEY FINALLY GET some gonads but they will still never have any balls

Wait a second... (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863289)

It is clear that our favorite software giant plans to cultivate a culture of developer empowerment.

I thought this article was on Microsoft, not Apple?

Wait a minute... (1)

Gilesx (525831) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863293)

So after years of telling us that the command line is dead, it's not dead anymore? I'm confused...

However, I am looking forward to lots of Windows users becoming "l337" overnight because they now know a couple of commands for msh, in much the same way as all gentoo users are uber coders, as they've regularly sat and watched screenfulls of text scroll past.

Hypothetical for the Linux Crew (3, Insightful)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863316)

Hypothetically: What if MS pulls it off and puts out the best OS that the Linux guys have ever seen. Let's say it's the Longhorn Server, WinFS, Monad, and everything MS has been touting works. Remember this is a hypothetical here so save the flaming/trolling for another thread.

Will the Linux guys at that point stop bashing MS? Will you consider using the MS OS? Now I understand you don't trust them, but how will you respond if you can't say their product sucks? Will the comments be, "Ya they make the best OS, but they are evil?" Or will you continue to say that "Windows is just crap because they don't share the kernel source?"

We are starting to see more and more people say that MS is doing a good job (like the parent thread here), and much to my surprise they are starting to open up their formats and products a little (not completely I know, but moving towards that direction). By all accounts it looks like for the next 18 months MS will be releasing some decent software, most of it strides ahead of the OSS available. Not to say that MS isn't catching up to SOME open source products... but that's fine, they should add the best features to their product, why wouldn't they?

Just an honest hypothetical here, I'm not trolling or anything, I'm trying to understand your stance a little better. The standard cliché response of "MS is a monopoly and EVIL" is fine, but I was hoping for more thought provoking responses.

Re:Hypothetical for the Linux Crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863374)

I'll start imagining your hypothetical "What if MS pulls it off and puts out the best OS that the Linux guys have ever seen." scenario, when you stop making blatant sweeping statements, such as "for the next 18 months MS will be releasing some decent software, most of it strides ahead of the OSS available." which patently are not true, come with no evidence to back up your grandoise claims, and only serve to cement your status as a clueless Microsoft fanboy.

Re:Hypothetical for the Linux Crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13863391)

hell, i'd leave the field. i couldn't live with myself being a suckup ass kisser after being shiat on for a decade. its bad enough working in a field where the 'experts' are from point and click and ms only world...everyday they discover something *new* like remote administration, email is truly amazing

i'm no longer in this field. it sucks...its for windows geeks only or mother teresa's and the truly elite. i bailed after 10+years for the science field. i'm an end user now...i still gag daily that i use a windows pc for the minimum requirements the world expects.

Odd choice of syntax (1)

thallgren (122316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863336)

I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of mishmash syntax in their new shell. I think it looks quite horrible actually. Even though all the functionality is there, it looks like they wanted to copy something rather than innovate.

MS has hired a lot of GHC folks, and I expected something along the lines of the elegancy of Haskell. Or at least something with a useful and flexible "core syntax".

Python without classes, so just use Python (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863339)

and don't worry about becoming dependent only to have a "Licen$e" fee imposed, or EULA restrictions about using GPL software in conjuction with it.

Since VISTA is turning out to be just a theme upgrade, why not upgrade to Linux and stop shelling out more and more money just to get a new theme or security holes patched, or the stability improved?

Duh!

If only linux had this (2, Funny)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863348)

it would finally be ready for the desktop.
when will the linux devs get on the ball its 2005 the new wave of computing is the command line.
who says microsoft doesnt inovate.

DOS Window, still?!? (2, Funny)

bbzzdd (769894) | more than 8 years ago | (#13863349)

Thank you Microsoft for updating the "DOS" shell. Us command-line jocks really do appreciate it. They were even nice to us switch-hitters in that "cd /windows/system32" (note the forward slashes) actually works now. I guess they concede they lost the slash wars after all these years :)

But seriously. After spending in any time in a Linux or OS X sexy, semi-transparent shell windows, with a nice courier font and syntax highlighting, Monand (as it is now) still runs in the gross 1982 DOS window?

I hope this changes come Long^M^M^M^M Vista

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...