6 ms·
All those sysadmins would have been perfectly happy with just a properly working unix like shell.
by chetanahuja 10y ago
All those sysadmins would have been perfectly happy with just a properly working unix like shell.
- coldtea 10y agoYes. Like all those early car buyers would be perfectly happy with faster horses.
- newacct23 10y agofalse equivalency
- coldtea 10y agoNo, actually it's quite apt. PowerShell, or at least the concept behind PowerShel, is an improvement/superset over the Unix shells -- and can do whatever the shells can do, plus stuff they cannot do, because they don't support typed entities. Its problems are not technical or conceptual -- they are ecosystem and historical: lack of compatible tools, windows-only, etc.
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoOr to the point of the original parent: the industry considers powershell a solution in search of a problem.
- pjmlp 10y agoOnly those that disregard the inventions from Xerox and ETHZ. Powershell ideas go back to how REPLs work in those environments.
- sigsergv 10y agoBoth PS and bash are horses actually.
- chetanahuja 10y agoAnd everybody remembers how Ford was forced to reintroduce a carriage with a horse a couple of decades later because nobody was really using those horseless carriages. Right? https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows/ https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-o...
- kriro 10y agoUnix like shell + Python/Perl/Ruby = car That being said I really don't mind that MS went the PowerShell route. It improved their ecosystem a lot and I belive was also one of the engines behind the more open minded move towards open source...maybe someone at MS can chime in but I feel like PS was always one of the strong projects pushing that forward from talking to some MS engineers.