×

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 PowerShell in Action

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

442

jlcopeland writes "For two decades I've hated the command prompt in DOS and Windows. Inconsistencies abound and everything is a special case. The fallback on a Microsoft box has been running a Unix shell under Cygwin or installing Microsoft's own Services for Unix (or its predecessor, Softway's Interix), or by scripting in Perl, but those only get you so far. Having co-written nine years worth of trade rag columns using mostly Perl as the implementation language for the samples, and thinking of every problem that comes across my desk as an excuse to write a little bit of scripting code, I've got some well-formed views about scripting languages and what works and what doesn't. That means I've been eagerly watching the development of PowerShell since it was called Monad. It's got the advantage of being a unified command-line interface and scripting language for Windows, even if it does have a dorky name." Read the rest of Jeffrey's review.

Bruce Payette's Windows PowerShell in Action is a great overview of PowerShell, aimed at an audience that's got some experience with other scripting languages. Bruce's book is a big improvement over Andy Oakley's earlier book, Monad, which I had been using: it's more complete and it's up-to-date for the first release of PowerShell. It's got great (and sometimes amusing) examples, and feels like the Perl Camel book in flow. When I was reading it in the gym or someplace else away from the keyboard, I kept wanting to run back to the office to try something out. There are also useful "why it works this way" digressions, which provide a lot of context. Since Bruce was on the original development team, wrote most of the commandlets, and was responsible for much of the language design, those digressions are more authoratitive than the directors' commentary tracks on most DVDs.

In outline, the nine chapters in the first part of the book build up as you'd expect: overview and concepts, to data types, to operators, to regular expressions, to syntax, to functions, to interpreting errors. It covers that ground better than many language books that now litter my shelves. The explanations are clear, and the examples are almost all exactly on point. It took me a second reading to realize that my complaints about the regular expression sub-chapter wasn't about the chapter itself, but about some of the implementation decisions; that's an argument about style more than substance, and an observation about me, not about Bruce's writing or PowerShell. The first part of the book is the "mandatory reading," if you will, to get the language down and begin exploring on your own.

The second part is where the real applications are covered. That's the part that you especially want to read sitting next to the keyboard. As you'd expect, the example code is available from the publisher's web site to start you off — look for "Example Code" under "Resources." There's a very good discussion of text processing and how-to-handle XML, complete with some not-obvious warnings about traps to avoid. I've been working very carefully through the really good chapter on using GUIs with PowerShell, "Getting Fancy — .NET and WinForms," and my own proof of concept for that has been rebuilding an old C++ data entry application into a much simpler PowerShell script. As a nice side effect, Bruce's book (and the WinForms chapter in particular) provide a gentle overview to some concepts in the .NET framework, which I hadn't had an opportunity to delve into. The appendix on using PowerShell as a management application will be especially useful to system managers; that was one of the original PoweShell target audiences, and the language achieved that goal very well. The appendix on the language's grammar is really useful, and I keep flipping back to it to check on things.

After Oakley's Monad appeared, there was a long gap before the next PowerShell book appeared. Bruce's book looks to be the first of the post-release wave. If all it had going for it was the authoratative pedigree of the writer, it might be worth it, but it's also well-written, well-organized, and thorough, which I think makes it invaluable as both a learning tool and a reference.


You can purchase Windows PowerShell in Action from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

442 comments

Monad (5, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960757)

Named after the designer lost a testicle in a tragic chair throwing accident.

Re:Monad (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960825)

I saw the word monad and I thought Haskell, but alas no.

Re:Monad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18960859)

The shell was actually initially designed by a noteworthy Haskell developer, hence the original name.

Re:Monad (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961179)

I don't get this chair trowing jokes. Can anyone please enlighten me?

Windows "power shell"? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18960763)

has microsoft submitted to linux and unix? we have had a "power shell" for a few decades now..

PowerShell (3, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960853)

is one of the nicest things that came out of Redmond. Ever. My only complain is that it is tight integrated to .NET, but OTOH I believe this is necesary to integrate the always nice C# to it, which is of course a plus.... You can't have the cake and eat it...

At this rate... (5, Insightful)

pnuema (523776) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960875)

...in 20 years MS will invent UNIX.

Re:At this rate... (4, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961013)

For those that didn't get it, his comment was a play on the famous:
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly"

Re:At this rate... (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961111)

Wake me up when *nix gets an object-oriented (rather than text-oriented) shell. Because that is what makes Powershell so unique. Yes, it has plenty of builtin functions to make tasks easier, but the real advantage is that everything you pass between commands is an object.

You don't have to worry about interpreting text output - you just access whatever data you want directly. Many of the commands are easily chainable into something like "ls | select fullname,length | sort name | format-list | out-printer".

Re:At this rate... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961315)

Any other requests?

Actually, I think you can do that with plain old python also, it's just not as "friendly"

Re:At this rate... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961365)

The shell is a text interface, if I want OOP I can call a different scripting language for every day of the week and then some.

What's to understand here?

Re:At this rate... (0, Flamebait)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961441)

you're not being serious, are you? Hope not, yet your post is mod'd "interesting" instead of "funny."

First, that's a poor definition of "object" - second, I can pass non-text data from one function to another with no prob.

you might notice that | symbol there lets ya chain stuff. Well gosh, I've been doing that in Unix for 14 years. Binary data, text, whatever I want to pass. It's been possible in Unix for longer than that, I'm just speaking to how long *I* have been doing it.

ls| sed -e 's/^d/b/'|mailx -s "oh no!" phrosty

Re:At this rate... (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961711)

First, that's a poor definition of "object"

I never defined object. If you would like clarification, they _are_ objects you pass around. Everything is an instance of a .NET class. Doing "ls | get-member" lets me know it is giving me back DirectoryInfo and FileInfo objects, complete with all the properties and methods you could ask for.

you might notice that | symbol there lets ya chain stuff.

I'm not claiming Powershell was the first to invent the pipe - god no. I just meant to point out that *finally* Windows has something on equal ground to *nix.

ls| sed -e 's/^d/b/'|mailx -s "oh no!" phrosty

And if you used Powershell, you wouldn't have to do any text processing. That's all I was pointing out with that (poor) example. That and the above, that you can finally pipe crap together.

Re:At this rate... (3, Funny)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961825)

Wake me up when *nix gets an object-oriented (rather than text-oriented) shell.

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." (Douglas Adams)

Re:At this rate... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961271)

From what I understand, powershell takes the shell scripting to a whole new level that no *nix does. For example, you can pass objects between applications and other scripts rather than piping text/raw data between them. I'd actually like to give it try some time. Too bad (yea right!) I don't have many Windows servers to put it to the test on.

-matthew

Re:At this rate... (5, Interesting)

archen (447353) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961733)

There's actually a lot of other cool things about it as well. I've been using Jscript to do stuff since Win2k (screw that VBscript garbage) but there are obvious limitations at the scripting level, but in the end you're always stuck in cmd.exe

I was skeptical when I first heard about Monad. I mean it seemed obvious to me that Microsoft just didn't get the point of a "shell" which is supposed to be simple. With a pending install of Exchange 2007, the power shell is required so I figured I'd start to dig into it. I have to say I'm rather impressed.

First of all, it is actually simple. Not only that, but the syntax is EXTREMELY CONSISTENT. And honestly I cannot stress that enough, because if you think you know part of a command you can usually figure out the verb/noun syntax to use. It also allows shortcut versions of commands so you don't have to type the entire "wordy" version of the command. Aliases are supported too. Another cool feature? You can navigate the registry like the rest of the file heirarchy.

I'm a big fan of bash, but I must admit that at times it gets old shuffling stuff with awk and cut and so forth. By getting objects you can take what you want out of it, and not worry about the biggest Unix terror - the text output changing. If whatever you're trying to do doesn't support .net objects, you can still pipe text.

Overall it's pretty awesome technology and I must give MS credit where it's due. Not that I'll be switching any of my FreeBSD servers to Windows because of it, but it makes windows administration orders of magnitude better. Too bad it got dumped in Vista. I've heard it will be included in service pack 1 though.

Re:At this rate... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961553)

Yes, PSH (boy, that name sucks) copies things like pipelines from Unix shells. It also has some features that no Unix shell every thought of, like script signing and support for hierarchical data stores.

Re:At this rate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961877)

It also has some features that no Unix shell every thought of, like script signing and support for hierarchical data stores.
That is because:
  • Config files are plain text, instead of being stuck in the mess that is the Jet db Registry in Windows
  • They don't have to because it is not a stand alone tool, there are hundreds of GNU utilities that handle things like searching, updating, parsing, as well as db access that can also be used separately or with tools other than a specific shell

It's amazing people still use windows. (0, Troll)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960911)

Every time I use Windows, I find it amazing that people still pay for and use MS software. It's pretty good, but it seems to be missing a lot of key features. Things like the shell are decades behind unix. I can't even take a picture and scale it to fit on the desktop without the aspect ratio being messed up. I can't stand using IE, even IE7 because it's behind where firefox was 2 years ago. given the current rate that Linux/Open source is catching up to MS, I give them another 10 years before linux has 20% of the PC market.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

SlashSquatch (928150) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961001)

Image Magick tools run fine under windows in a pinch.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961101)

Doesn't work in XP.

All my scripts that worked in Win2000 and 98 fail to work. Granted the image manipulation parts work but putting copies in different directories don't work.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961011)

given the current rate that Linux/Open source is catching up to MS, I give them another 10 years before linux has 20% of the PC market


Man, what an insult to Linux. If Linux were worth half the damn that most people here think it is, it should have 20% of the PC market already, much less by 10 years from now. Given how much people trash Microsoft here and talk about how Linux/OSS is so superior, why is Linux/OSS so slow that it'd take 10 years to get to 20% of where Microsoft is TODAY? ;)

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961097)

Are we talking desktop or server here? In the server world, it's a different picture, and it's quite true that Microsoft has never had a command scripting language that was half as easy to use and as versatile as Bourne shell and its descendants. You can do a lot with NT batch scripting, but it's a tedious and horrid creature that leaves you with frequently incomprehensible scripts. It's nice to see that MS has recognized that, and finally recognized that good command line tools are an important part of a system administrator's bag of tricks. I cannot count the number of times I've wished for something like Bash that was integrated into Windows. Yes, you can use VBScript or JScript, but what little there is for file support is just plain hideous, and trying to work with standard input and output is just too clumsy to be really workable.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961147)

There was no competing OS when IBM chose to push it (DOS).

Windows got it's push from 3rd party money (IBM and others) thus adding to it's war chest.

Linux doesn't have the resources that Microsoft had to get it polished to the current level.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961273)

Well, if you count the number of licenses sold, Linux will _NEVER_ have 20% of the market. What I'm seeing of home users and hearing from people I know, Linux has about 10% or so, and is growing. The cost of Vista and the upgrade pains coupled with the inevitable payment for help they will need is starting to crumble the veil of superiority that Windows has held for so long.

Yes, that sounds roughly fanboi-ish, but it's a reflection of what I see in the world around me, not what I imagine. I recently handed Ubuntu CDs to two barmaids that were fed up with trying to get Windows for free as they can't afford the cost of a legal copy. They are not technically minded, they installed it themselves and are now very happy and not going back. A decision they made shortly after I gave them advice on what tweaks to make to Firefox... I see this being repeated all the time yet these people will not be counted in the desktop market share wars.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961853)

Man, what an insult to Linux. If Linux were worth half the damn that most people here think it is, it should have 20% of the PC market already, much less by 10 years from now. Given how much people trash Microsoft here and talk about how Linux/OSS is so superior, why is Linux/OSS so slow that it'd take 10 years to get to 20% of where Microsoft is TODAY? ;)


This is one of the few times i can say, i honestly don't know if you're trolling or not, and i don't mean that in any way an insult. Maybe it's a statement to your relative subtlety ;)

People like things simple, but many things are complex. OS adoption is determined by many factors, technical excellence just being one of them. Consider something "simple" as price?
  • Software cost.
  • software perceived cost (With windows, its usually baked in with the "Microsoft tax")
  • Hardware to support my software cost (do drivers exist for my OS or do i have to do research and buy something)
  • Support cost: who do i call if something goes bad? Who can come over to my house? We're all MS's great unpaid IS support staff.


I could got on for a paragraph or two just on price alone. Early adoption is done by people who have a whole different class of requirements than the mass market. The fact that Linux is going into the mass market at all is a testament to its usefulness.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (3, Funny)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961021)

given the current rate that Linux/Open source is catching up to MS, I give them another 10 years before linux has 20% of the PC market.

2017, the year of the linux desktop!

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961427)

1998 was the year of the linux desktop, at least for me it was. And I was a die hard Windows/Dos user before that. I had only passing exposure to Unix. December 10th 1998 my windows 95 died. I decided to install Linux Redhat 5.0 and never looked back. Unfortunately I am now stuck on a Mac.

What is the meaning of this "The year of the Linux Desktop?"

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (2, Insightful)

PadRacerExtreme (1006033) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961041)

Things like the shell are decades behind unix.

YOu do realize that 90% of users have aboslutely no need for a shell, right? I would argue most power users don't need a shell.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961197)

If you don't need a shell, then you're not a power user.

The 'Power User' role created by MS for their rights and roles templates is just an attempt reconcile their munged access permissions with some sort of account access.

Very poorly done and nearly useless.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961351)

Wrong. 90% of users don't need the old windows/msdos shell. If people had a shell that was as good as bash, then they would use it. As it is now, using the shell in windows doesn't provide any benefit, so nobody bothers to use it. You can't say people don't need a shell when they don't have one. It's like saying people didn't need macros in word processors before the existed. Nobody used macros because the option wasn't available to them. Now that macros are available, many people do use them, and not just the power users. MS assumes that everybody is an idiot, and therefore doesn't provide tools that people with the right skills would actually use. Therefore, nobody has the opportunity to develop skills with these tools. Take a look at some of the stuff in XP, like that search dog, and the dumbed-down control panel and management options. With features like that it's no wonder people don't learn anything about computers, when the computer assumes they don't.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

dknj (441802) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961397)

correct, there was already vbscript which can do everything and then some (even if the learning curve is akin to ripping off your eyelids...) while i haven't used powershell yet, i have not had a need to use it. the switch to powershell will eventually be made since longhorn server will include it. it should begin the end of the vbscript era..

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (4, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961431)

I would argue most power users don't need a shell.

I'd say that power users who think they don't need a shell don't know what they're missing ; they could have a lot more power.

The gentleman sitting next to me has recently discovered and raves about WinGrep, a GUI file search/replace utility with RegExp support. It's not bad, but it can't compare with a shell - you can't, for instance, search for a bunch of files containing your desired pattern match and invoke an external utility to process each one. And anything that the original application designer didn't visualise as a feature is excluded. He's easily capable of comprehending grep and sed, which would do the same job for free, but he's more comfortable with the GUI.

In a *nix style shell, the ability to pipeline STDOUT through a whole bunch of little utils is the tool of a real power user - and it has a nice easy learning curve, you can pick up new commands as and when you like, and combine them with old favourites. The downside to the *nix shell is that very often you have to perform some esoteric text processing to get what you want, which means learning tools like awk and sed. Powershell works by passing objects through the pipeline - objects that have useful properties. It's even an improvement with old-style executables that emit pure text - the .NET String object has an API that's a lot easier than sed and awk.

The GUI equivalent of a shell for a power user would be a pipeline composer where you can take various widgets representing actions and plug them together. Perhaps something like the DTS transform designer in SQL Enterprise Manager. Or maybe not :-)

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961535)

Wrong!!! I know i cant be in a unique position, i, being a lonely geek, looks heavily at free porn, as well as makes downloads from the web and bittorrent. Now, i dare you to even open a directory containing a few (10+) thousand files (pictures), yea, less then a second on a shell, instant. Now, thats say i just downloaded a few thousand images (possible 20,000+) from bittorrent, and, surprise surprise, they are in .rar format. I dont know if you tried, but the unrar program in *nix is bizarre. You just cant say "unrar e ../downloads/newpornfrombittorrent/*", no, the unrar program only accepts one file at a time. This is a very good place to say, use the true power of the shell: "for i in ../downloads/newpornfrombittorrent/*; do unrar e $i; done" or something like that. Next, it sadly unpacked in multiple directories, even worse, the images are named such as "01.jpg", which means we couldent extract them to the same file, nore can we, we must rename all of them before we can even think about moving them. Now, if your dealing with thousands of images, ill just let you suffer in a GUI while you think about how your going to move them. In the meantime, renaming all the files is our task, which again, you GUI users can suffer. A small script that extracts the directory name, and uses "rename" to append the directory name to each file in its directory will suffice for our renaming purposes."for i in *; do cd $i; rename "" $i *; cd ..; done;", simple eh? Now, to move our files... please, like a few thousand files is anything to worry about? "find ./* -name .jpg|xargs mv --target-directory=../porn/images/sorted".

Eh, i know i cant be a special user, ok, maybe organizing by porn is unique, i never asked so i dont know, but the point is: the shell, its not just for administrators, its for porn lovers to, what other users might also find the shell indispensable?

word to type: passion .. so true.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961555)

Saying you don't need a shell just means you have found clunky, typically inefficient workarounds, or you are just living without its benefits.

Sure you can live without a vacuum cleaner, but your carpet and overall cleanliness is going to suffer for it. I know people who live in apartments without vacuum cleaners and they are very similar to computers who's users don't use or understand shells.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

Delkster (820935) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961575)

Most people may not need a command-line shell, and power users may survive without one, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valuable part of a toolkit.

In particular, a good command-line interface (such as those found in many unix variants) is much more flexible than any GUI I've seen so far. Its strength comes from the ability to combine several simple tools together to build up a more complex and powerful one. I often reach for the command-line when I want to do something to a number of different files, for example mass renaming, adding ReplayGain tags to audio files, or any number of other such things. Of course any one of these things can be done through a GUI, but the point to notice is that the command-line shell needn't be specifically designed for any such task -- it offers the possibility not through a specific feature implemented explicitly for that task but by offering a flexible collection of tools to be freely used and combined. Usually GUIs will do mostly just those things they were designed for.

Of course, the things I use the command-line for could probably be done with a GUI even without a specific feature for the task, but it might well mean more manual work -- and power users don't like that.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961161)

Things like the shell are decades behind unix.
Except that Powershell is more advanced than bash, ksh and even zsh, in one regard. Since it treats piped arguments as objects instead of strings, Psh lets programs access the data directly, instead of having to manipulate large amounts of textual data with tools such as grep or PERL.

Once it becomes more widespread, Powershell is going to obsolete cmd.exe as the latter did to command.com. If you have to use Windows, I would start learning it immediately.

The philosophy behind textual data (3, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961759)

it treats piped arguments as objects instead of strings, Psh lets programs access the data directly, instead of having to manipulate large amounts of textual data with tools such as grep or PERL.


Then they have absolutely no idea about what they are doing. The one big advantage in using pipes is that any application can handle text data.


Let me give one example: I use the sort command all the time, it sorts data by lines of text, lines are compared according to criteria passed in command options.


Now, imagine if it depended on binary objects. For every sort operation one would have to write a comparison function to decide which object should come before the other. Writing a special function would mean declaring some form of callback, or maybe some people would call it a closure, whatever. And so on.


Here's one simple command I use when a disk starts getting full to see which directory is the data hog:
du -x / | sort -nr > mem.txt &
What this command does is check the disk usage (du command) in the root directory (/) without looking at symbolic links to other disks (-x option). The result is piped to the sort function, where it's sorted by the numeric value of the first column in reverse order (-nr option). The sorted result is sent to a file named mem.txt. Since checking the whole disk may take some time, it's done in the background (& command). After it finishes, I have a file with the size of each directory in the disk, one line per directory, ordered by size, larger directories first.


See how powerful it is, having data represented as text? Try writing this line as a Powershell script.


Another advantage of having data in text format is that you can test it using the keyboard and screen very easily, no need to run a special debugger.


Instead of trying to reinvent Unix poorly, Microsoft would do a favor to its customers if they accepted Unix is a mighty fine OS and adopted without shame its best features.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961363)

Every time I use Linux, I find it amazing that people still use Open Source software. It's pretty good, but it seems to be missing a lot of key features. Things like 3D acceleration are decades behind Windows. I can't even play Half-Life at all.

People use Windows because most people are not looking for the same things in an OS that you are. I know it's an easy way to get some karma here on Slashdot, but saying you can't believe anyone uses Windows because the shell sucks and you've had bad experiences resizing pictures is absurd.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961729)

When you're putting together a good, *free* mail server or file sharing server, 3D acceleration doesn't count. It's the kind of guys putting together servers who are in the most need of good shells. The *nix shells, with chained pipes, just kicks the shit out of Microsoft's languages thus far. Some of the tools are a bit tough to learn (sed is a real nightmare, so I use awk), but I've done some pretty amazing things in bash, massaging nine or ten thousand item catalogs from some distributor's bizarre mainframe format into CSV files with a few lines of awk code. That's the kind of shell and shell tools that are needed; quick-and-dirty tools that don't try to do every goddamn thing possible, but rather do one thing and do it very well.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (1, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961799)

What I'm saying is that for power users, Windows sucks because it doesn't provide any features geared towards them. I'm also saying that for non-power users it sucks, because you can't just put an image on your desktop, and have it resize to fit the screen automatically. You have to open it up in an image editor, resize it to your desktop, then put it on your desktop. I don't see what any particular person likes about windows, power user or not.

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (2, Informative)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961899)

Things like 3D acceleration are decades behind Windows.

Actually, 3D acceleration in Linux is technologically ahead of Windows. What's behind is driver support, although that's coming around.

People use Windows because most people are not looking for the same things in an OS that you are.

Well, nobody in my family uses Windows anymore: they have all switched to either Mac OS or Ubuntu, both of which are considerably less hassle and overall cheaper.

Cost of transition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961501)

I'm guessing a lot of people are going to be nodding (or modding) in agreement, while typing away on a QWERTY keyboard, misspelling words in English (that language where spelling makes no sense), measuring things with the Imperial system, ...

Re:It's amazing people still use windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961767)

So maybe you should RTFA about the NEW IMPROVED ALL DIFFERENT windows shell before posting?

Don't knock it until you try it (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960913)

Powershell is very powerful. Much more so than cmd.exe. I don't have significant enough experience with bash to compare the two but I would not be surprised to learn Powershell equals if not beats bash at the shell game. I wouldn't say it is ready to replace any of the scripting languages just yet.

I have been using it for a while now and the single (semi-major) problem I can find is memory usage. It is a hog at best, and at worst when you are using it semi-heavily it can easily chew up 1GB of memory. That's even with giving the GC something to work with, ie unsetting $vars when you are done with their data.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (5, Informative)

TBone (5692) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960999)

I would not be surprised to learn Powershell equals if not beats bash at the shell game. I wouldn't say it is ready to replace any of the scripting languages just yet.

Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.

I have been using it for a while now and the single (semi-major) problem I can find is memory usage. It is a hog at best, and at worst when you are using it semi-heavily it can easily chew up 1GB of memory. That's even with giving the GC something to work with, ie unsetting $vars when you are done with their data.

Another reason it will never surpass the shells. They're lightweight, and flexible, and I don't need a Garbage Collector running in the back end to clean up my object allocation.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (0, Flamebait)

seaturnip (1068078) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961313)

Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.

You're obviously just parroting Unix ideology and haven't even bothered to take a glance at Monad to see how it compares. As I understand it, Monad's object model is essentially a superset of Unix's file model. I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice, but it is a fundamentally more powerful paradigm.

Another reason it will never surpass the shells. They're lightweight, and flexible, and I don't need a Garbage Collector running in the back end to clean up my object allocation.

That's what they said about the early versions of Java. Now C++ is relegated mostly to embedded, systems and games programming.

perl -e (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961845)

You're obviously just parroting Unix ideology and haven't even bothered to take a glance at Monad to see how it compares. As I understand it, Monad's object model is essentially a superset of Unix's file model. I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice, but it is a fundamentally more powerful paradigm.

If we want/need to call an OO scripting language, we can do just that thank you very much. Typical Microsoft non-solution to a non-problem just so they can lock users to their ailing platform.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (0)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961411)

Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.

You'll be happy to know one of the major points of Powershell is the ability to pipe objects through all of their various commands. It's nice to finally have a usable shell, but god damn it is overdue.

I'd be interested to know why people are modding my post down :) Is the suggestion that a Windows shell might finally equal bash flamebait now? Or maybe I didn't list enough of Powershell's faults - I should have just left out the complements to it to appease the anti-Microsoft folks. If someone who has actually used Powershell beyond what cmd.exe can already do would like to rebut something I said, please do! *ducks*

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (1)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 6 years ago | (#18962011)

If someone who has actually used Powershell beyond what cmd.exe can already do would like to rebut something I said, please do!

I think you're missing the point: more (data types, commands, options, features, etc.) are not necessarily an advantage in a shell. The UNIX shells hit a sweet spot between scripting and interactivity. Three decades of practical experience and evolution have gone into it. Along the line, people have tried all sorts of thing (object oriented shells, XML shells, etc.), and, given a choice, people always went back to the UNIX text shells.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (0)

Jartan (219704) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961715)

Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.


It still uses normal pipes. The "objects" it passes are just XML text streams from what I understand. They will have no problem using all the currently existing UNIX tools. In fact I'd be stupified if new tools aren't created to format common UNIX tools output into XML streams and vice versa.

Some people will love this new idea and even incorporate it on the UNIX side of things. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of using XML for this purpose but I'll give kudos to MS for bucking UNIX's crappy old model and trying to improve it even if they end up failing.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (4, Informative)

arevos (659374) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961807)

Unless MS rewrites all of their other commands to accept STDIN/OUT, Monad will never surpass the shells. The power of the shells isnt' their programming flexibility, it's their ability to incorporate all the other UNIX tools and commands via pipes to do what you want.
Powershell doesn't use pipes in the same way shells do in unix. Powershell communicates via remote methods and objects, and a lot of the Windows API has been exposed to it, so there's quite a lot of things you can do with it, and a few things that would be a lot more difficult to do with text streams and pipes. It's also quite logically put together, much more so than the standard unix set of command tools. There's not as many third party apps, but most of the basics are there.

It really fails in two places. Firstly, it's slow. You wouldn't have thought it possible for a command shell to be that slow, but it is. It's so slow it was actually quicker for me to use explorer. It is god-awfully, mind-bogglingly slow.

The second problem is that it had no easy way of being accessed over a network link, last time I looked at it. So there's no chance of SSHing into a Windows box and administrating it from there, at least not without fiddling with a lot of hacks and workarounds I couldn't get to work.

The other place where unix shells have an advantage over Powershell is in there interface, as Powershell is currently quite basic in that department. There's limited tab completion and a prompt that can be altered (like PS1 under sh derivitives), but not much over that. Certainly nowhere near my personal favourite, Fish [wikipedia.org] .

Another reason it will never surpass the shells. They're lightweight, and flexible, and I don't need a Garbage Collector running in the back end to clean up my object allocation.
Why so closed-minded? Powershell has a lot of interesting ideas, and an architecture that's structurally very well organised. Don't dismiss it just because it was made by Microsoft, especially since it sounds as if you haven't even tried it out.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961811)

I remember one idea that Microsoft was talking about with Monad that actually sounded like a noteworthy innovation-- but I don't know if it still exists. They claimed that any program developed for Vista or Longhorn would have all of their GUI elements automatically scriptable. This seemed potentially useful since I actually have a lot of Windows programs that I have to use for highly repetitive tasks, and I have to use special automation software to accomplish this.

Microsoft's command-line certainly needed to be overhauled in order to be useful for scripting, and I might imagine some ways that I'd like to see bash changed, but that doesn't excite me too much. The idea, however, of all Windows programs automatically having their functions controllable through a command-line actually seemed like something worth mentioning. Does Powershell have this functionality?

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961093)

but I would not be surprised to learn Powershell equals if not beats bash at the shell game


Blasphemy !!

:-)

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (2, Informative)

immovable_object (569797) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961153)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks! I needed a laugh today, and saying that a shell can use up to a gig of memory provided that laugh.

Let's see on my Mac with OS X, my bash shells, which admittedly aren't being used semi-heavily, are using:

USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
nobody 879 0.7 -0.0 27816 856 p3 Ss 11:06AM 0:00.12 bash
nobody 281 0.0 -0.1 27816 1472 p1 S+ 11:09PM 0:00.17 -bash
nobody 348 0.0 -0.0 27816 904 p2 S+ 11:37PM 0:00.16 -bash


Hmmm... that comes to an average of 1078kb of memory per shell. And PowerShell can use up to a GIGABYTE?

I'm still laughing.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961159)

I don't have significant enough experience with bash to compare the two but I would not be surprised to learn Powershell equals if not beats bash at the shell game.


Well, you'd be surprised to learn that bash isn't even the tip of the iceberg in Linux. There's also sh, csh, ash, dash, ksh, and I don't know how many other shell options I can't recall just now.


the single (semi-major) problem I can find is memory usage. It is a hog at best, and at worst when you are using it semi-heavily it can easily chew up 1GB of memory


WOW! And some people prefer to use dash because they complain that bash uses up to 1MB of memory in Linux! Boy, I'm glad I switched to Linux ten years ago and convinced my managers it's the best option for my work...

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961177)

Well first of all as you say you have no experience with BASH so can't compare... And while I can't disagree because I haven't used the powershell (and don't intend to)...

If a shell needs 1GB of RAM with "semi-heavy" usage it can't really be compared to BASH, especially since I can have 5-6 full-screen shells and a lot of windows open on my 512MB Kubuntu, and still not have to touch the swap

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961263)

If it's the case that the new shell takes up that much memory, then Microsoft has completely missed the boat. Why the hell would I want, say, my scheduled tasks running in a resource hog like that? K-rist, but I might as well use Python or PHP, and get full-blown languages, and I'll wager an instance still wouldn't come close to that.

You could fit 500 PDP-11/70s in that shell! (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961573)

It is a hog at best, and at worst when you are using it semi-heavily it can easily chew up 1GB of memory.

1GB for a command interpreter?

Christ.

I mean, just...

No, I can't come up with words that are strong enough.

Holy mother of Moore, they've got good crack in Redmond.

Re:Don't knock it until you try it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18962029)

My biggest hangup after using it for a while is how "powerful" it is. It strikes me as (essentially) command line / scriptable object oriented vb.net. I'm a sysadmin, I can't program for squat. The chances of me actually _remembering_ any commands in this thing, let alone being able to use it swiftly and regularly are pretty slim.

Monads are windowless, get it? (5, Interesting)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960933)

I wish they'd kept "monad" as the name. It was a deft tip of the hat to Leibniz's Monadologie, which held that monads were the windowless metaphysical atoms of perception itself.

Re:Monads are windowless, get it? (2, Insightful)

clamantis (708173) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961485)

"I wish they'd kept "monad" as the name." Hey, there's a name. WiSH!

Well, *that's* unique (5, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 6 years ago | (#18960951)

Inconsistencies abound and everything is a special case.

You should switch to bash and the GNU tools.

Oh, wait.

Powerful shell? Use REXX! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18960961)

If he wants a powerful shell program, he can go back and use OS/2 with its builtin REXX, or he can get an addon REXX for windows.

Everyone should follow their lead... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961007)

Now all we need is for Sun to develop a Solaris-only shell, Apple to develop a Mac-only shell, and RedHat to develop a Linux-only shell. I hate re-using code because it forces me to solve new problems every day. I'd rather create new value on Mondays only, and then spend the rest of the week re-doing the same work on my other platforms. It gives my mind a chance to rest, and I can drink heavily mid-week and still be able to do my job.

I sure hope they charge extra for it, make it a resource hog, lock out third-pary extensions, and then discontinue it as soon as I'm dependant on it. I really liked the 1980s and look forward to reliving them.

Re:Everyone should follow their lead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961137)

HA hah haha! mod-up parent Snarky +7

Great Review (4, Interesting)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961047)

I don't use Monad (:s/M/G/g) or intend to, so I don't care much about the book. But what a great review. We get a lot of amateur reviews around here, but this one was particularly well written, clear, and informative. Nice job, homie.

9 years? (-1, Flamebait)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961061)

Having co-written nine years worth of trade rag columns using mostly Perl

Nine years and you haven't learned to move on from Satan's curse. Seriously, linguists shouldn't be allowed to create programming languages. They really don't know what they are doing in this domain. Witness the glacial development of Perl6.

Re:9 years? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961183)

Witness the glacial development of Perl6.
Feel free to fork, speedy.

Re:9 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961679)

I guess we should throw out Chomsky's contributions should be thrown out, too. Fool.

it's obvious (0, Troll)

jcgam69 (994690) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961063)

Stop trying to fix windows and switch to linux. Windows is hopeless. If you can't run linux then you might as well end-it-all now, because you life is not worth living.

Re:it's obvious THAT YOU ARE A LINUX TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961195)

"Stop trying to fix windows and switch to linux. Windows is hopeless. If you can't run linux then you might as well end-it-all now, because you life is not worth living." - by jcgam69 (994690) on Wednesday May 02, @03:15PM (#18961063)

SILENCE, PENGUIN TROLL!

After all, You were the one foolish enough to choose the underdog, now, live with it.

(Yes, you live in "linux land" and I will stay in Windows, the most used Operating System on the planet, & all the way from the home level, to departmental servers using client-server mode, to the HIGH end, in Enterprise Class 24x7 stable operation (or, isn't NASDAQ going high-transaction, 24x7, evidence of this?)).

That all said, gee, one wonders: If Windows is used more on all of those levels, and it is? Where is the greatest chance of earning monies then? Answer - Windows.

15 years now, and Linux still has not toppled Windows as the most ubiquitous and flexible environs there is, with the most peripheral device support (not meaning cpu platforms it ports to, but devices one can attach to a computer), and most surrouding software for various purposes.

Heck, Linux hasn't even "taken out" the other UNIX variants!

And, before you say "Windows has bugs/viruses/trojans/malware" etc. et al, remember, so do the others & it is just that they are not as targetted because there is less attack surface out there since they are less used & most of them are the result NOT of the Operating System Windows itself nowadays, but moreso in applications that ride on it (such as IE, when it is NOT secured by turning off JavaScript/ActiveX control usage/ActiveScripting).

(Besides, look @ the 'bright-side' of bugs: Techies love those same bugs/virus/trojans/malware, because it keeps them in a job - think about it!)

Innovation at last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961119)

With their own NIH sudo and sh variants Microsoft are well on their way to reinventing unix.

Powershell in Windows != Bash? (1)

zukinux (1094199) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961121)

Will I be able, within simple customization use my Bash scripting in Windows powershell ?
Simple customization such as folder changing (if it's hard coded to /home/user folder, I will change it to c:\ or c:\documents and settings\user) only.
If so, and Bash scripting might actually work, it would be great for me so I won't have to suffer while I'm using Windows, well, atleast not from the powershell... BSOD's Still disturb me :)

What is wrong with Cygwin? (2, Interesting)

raphae (754310) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961127)

a Unix shell under Cygwin or [...] but those only get you so far



What is wrong with Cygwin? How can he bash Cygwin (sorry, no pun intended) without even bothering to say anything about it?

What is wrong with Cygwin? - Performance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961219)

Performance of cygwin is abysmal. Actually not cygwin per se but the whole XP in which cygwin works ...
Same machine, same task:

XP+cygwin over 3 minutes
FC3 less than 3 seconds

Task involved greping and seding an processing hundreds of files ... The cost of processes
and files in XP killed it ...

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? - Performance ... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961327)

I did quite a bit of work with Cygwin a few years ago, even managing to get FreeRadius up and running. It's good from the limited perspective of needing a *nix tool and having an environment to do it in, but Cygwin is really kludgy, to the point that I finally gave up on it. I just don't think it's stable or efficient enough to be trusted with production tasks. It's great for "gee-wiz, I'm running KDE in my Windoze box", but I sure the hell wouldn't want to do anything serious with it.

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? - Performance ... (1)

Deagol (323173) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961511)

Have you tried the suite of utils that David Korn wrote for Windows? Just curious. I tried it several years ago, and was impressed. I haven't done a side-by-side between Cygwin and Korn's tools, though.

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? (1)

FrnkMit (302934) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961391)

The problem I have is with pathnames. On my machine, Java, Ruby, and Emacs are compiled for Windows and use the 'c:\...' convention. Cygwin tools understand only forward slashes, and consider '/' to be 'C:/cygwin/' and 'C:\' to be '/cygdrive/c/'. So all my shell scripts have to convert paths, and I have to run Ruby scripts in CMD.COM because it can't find /cygdrive/c/ruby/ ...

Plus, programs compiled with Cygwin's GCC only work within a Cygwin shell. I've yet to link to mingw successfully, though.

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 6 years ago | (#18962019)

You should look into JPSoft's 4NT. It's amazing. I've basically been using this product for about 20 years. I have cygwin, I know unix somewhat (but have alwyas primarily been a DOS/Windows man), but would much rather write scripts for 4NT than for bash. At least, on a windows machine this is true.

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961631)

What is wrong with Cygwin?

Cygwin is a hack. It is an add on to Windows, not an integral part of it. On OS X I can pipe output from GIMP straight to Photoshop. Try that on Windows+Cygwin. Try doing anything interesting that involves both Windows applications and CLI applications within Cygwin.

How can he bash Cygwin (sorry, no pun intended) without even bothering to say anything about it?

I imagine because it is common knowledge. Cygwin is an attempt to compensate for the lack of a native shell in Windows, but it is a "good enough" work around.

Re:What is wrong with Cygwin? (1)

raphae (754310) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961963)

does "interesting" include things like scripts that can check status of running services, starting, or stopping services, or scripts to synchronize data between locations? what does "pipe[ing] output from GIMP straight to Photoshop" have to do with "anything that involves both Windows applications and CLI applications within Cygwin"? something is non-sequitur here...

Some clever spacing (4, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961265)

Windows Powers Hell ?

I guess I always suspected it was true, but the beastie mascot of BSD made me wonder if there wasn't room for a little UNIX in Hades too.

I'd love Powershell, if it weren't for one thing: (5, Interesting)

3m_w018 (1002627) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961275)

It's slower than cold molasses up a hill.

It takes a few seconds for the prompt to appear, and if I run a "dir" operation with both cmd.exe and PS in a directory with hundreds of files, cmd.exe will beat it in seconds.

I'm not running a slow machine(core duo 2, 1GB of RAM). Is there something that needs to be configured to make it suck less?

Re:I'd love Powershell, if it weren't for one thin (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18962007)

Is there something that needs to be configured to make it suck less?

This patch [ubuntu.com] will do it.

Re:I'd love Powershell, if it weren't for one thin (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#18962027)

Its the typical .NET deal. First time you run something it takes a bit, after that its instant.

So basically, what makes it suck less, is to use it more.

What about MKS? (3, Informative)

markdj (691222) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961331)

You forgot MKS toolkit which has most if not all of the standard UNIX utilities along with vi, bash, ksh, sh, awk, sed, etc. What more could you want?

Re:What about MKS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961627)

Why in hell would I pay $479 for a single developer license, or $2000 for a 5-user development license, when the free alternatives provide identical if not superior functionality?

A solution to a problem that doesn't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18961459)

''The fallback on a Microsoft box has been running a Unix shell under Cygwin or installing Microsoft's own Services for Unix (or its predecessor, Softway's Interix), or by scripting in Perl, but those only get you so far.''

Those only get you how far exactly? With a Unix shell (Cygwin/MSYS) you can do all the unixy things you want. Perl is a complete general purpose programming language. If you don't like Perl's abominable syntax, there exist Windows-centered programming languages that can be used in place of scripts too, like Visual Basic, VBScript and JavaScript. Note that two of these are already supplied with Windows and the other is a Microsoft product too.

So as it stands, I simply don't see what use Powershell has. There are plenty of good tools available already, some of them free and open source to boot.

The name PowerShell has been already taken... (2, Interesting)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961521)

harry@satan:~$ apt-cache search powershell
powershell - powerful terminal emulator for GNOME

Why is JPSoft's 4DOS/4NT not mentioned? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961741)

I've been using this command-line since 1988, back when it was NDOS.COM, and was much better than COMMAND.COM. Later, they broke off from Norton and became JPSoft. When 2K came out, they changed the shell's name from 4DOS to 4NT.

So, I've been using NDOS/4NT for almost 20 years now. Why would I bother to learn PowerShell when I already have a shell? And I already have cygwin, so I can use unix tools at the command-line just fine?

It's sad that more people aren't using this great tool.

A quick intro to Monad (3, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#18961907)

For those who haven never seen Monad in action and are quick to bash (ha! get it?) Microsoft's new shell, take a look at these two [msdn.com] videos [msdn.com] . You'll see that it's much more than just bash on Win32. In fact, if it ever catches on, it'll be Unix's turn to play catch-up, because some parts of it are pretty damn amazing. (Note that those are from 2005, but AFAIK, there haven't been substantial changes.)

The whole point of Monad is that it's not just text, it's objects. So, unlike Unix, where you work with a command and then filter its output (which is just text), the output of Monad, while looking like text, is actually kind of like pointers back to the real thing, so instead of just doing a Unix-style command | filter | filter, you can say "OK, run this command, now of the things it output, go back and tell me this and this about them." Like, "Of these things that are running, tell me which five are using the most CPU time, then tell me the version of each, and how much memory they're using."

PS: "...even if it does have a dorky name"--which name were you referring to: the one that sounds like 'testicle' or the one that makes me think of the Lottery? :-)
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...