6 ms·

I can see the fossilization, but I don't see what's so typical Unix of that phenomenon. Windows still includes cmd.exe with all its broken, retarded features, w

I can see the fossilization, but I don't see what's so typical Unix of that phenomenon. Windows still includes cmd.exe with all its broken, retarded features, while it has powershell, which is supposedly (no experience myself) a little less retarded.

flukus 10y ago
cmd.exe starts in a second, powershell takes 5 and then another 10 to actually be interactive. So it's still useful to me.
- mavhc 10y ago
  And then 5 mins while you google how to enable scripts
- Zardoz84 10y ago
  Plus who would use these weird script language. Common! Even bash scripting it's more easy that powershell!
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Err. Bash scripting is awful. Trying to figure out what chain of commands you need to pull out that one particular piece of data from the output of that command... I've seen a dozen lines to manage it in some cases before, or calling out to a script in Awk or Perl. And then it won't work when you update your system because somebody decided to update a command's output format just slightly. Powershell is an object-oriented scripting language along the lines of something like Python, just with different syntax and more of a focus on managing services. It also has reasonable syntax for applying one command to the result of another - the pipe operator. And it's reasonable to use it in day-to-day usage as a command line. I've written a Powershell script to change an Exchange server setting we needed to change ever so often, faster than I could ever write a bash script to do the same. Under Linux, I'd likely have given up trying to use bash to edit a config, and just started writing an m4 file which generates the config as part of a cron job.
- 1wd 10y ago
  This was exactly my reason for ignoring powershell for a long time. Just tested it and it seems to start much quicker now.
ygra 10y ago
Contrary to less, PowerShell is definitely not backwards-compatible with cmd. Microsoft has changed cmd a select few times, most notably adding command extensions around NT 4, I think. But those changes were very careful not to break existing scripts (which means delayed expansion is always disabled by default). If vi acts a little bit different, or more accepts other keys that don't scroll a whole page, it's also not a big deal because those are tools people interact with, not programs. People are a bit more flexible with change. And Microsoft certainly changed a lot of things in our around its user interfaces. cmd is still around for the same reason sh is still around. For compatibility.
- a_thro_away 10y ago
  I disagree; would it be Unix/Linux without a bourne/csh/bash/whatever shell? Would Win3.x/NT/Win10 be the same without CMD.EXE? I have built, developed in both, heavily, and I say that Unix/Linux without a shell is not really Unix. But the Windows without a shell may disadvantage admins, but wouldn't be missed by the vat majority of users.
pjmlp 10y ago
Not sure, but the default install of HP-UX, Solaris, Aix, Tru64, ... are pretty bare bones. The last time I used one of those UNIXes (around 2006) everything seemed just like when I used UNIX for the first time in 1994. Actually my first step after a successful installation when doing Solaris administration in 2000 was to visit http://www.sunfreeware.com http://www.sunfreeware.com
ComodoHacker 10y ago
cmd.exe is not so fossil, it even get bugfixed from itme to time. But Windows still includes COMMAND.COM! Microsoft(R) Windows DOS (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001. C:\USERS\USER>ver Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] C:\USERS\USER>
- chungy 10y ago
  Disclaimer: Only the 32-bit x86 versions of Windows. Ones that include the NTVDM ;)
SixSigma 10y ago
But that was originally command.com, to command.exe to cmd.exe There is no "edit" or "edlin" any more or "ftp" or "telnet" or "tr" :(
- ianai 10y ago
  There's telnet. You have to install it though.
- JdeBP 10y ago
  There was never, to my knowledge, a command.exe .

flukus 10y ago

cmd.exe starts in a second, powershell takes 5 and then another 10 to actually be interactive. So it's still useful to me.

mavhc 10y ago
And then 5 mins while you google how to enable scripts
Zardoz84 10y ago
Plus who would use these weird script language. Common! Even bash scripting it's more easy that powershell!
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Err. Bash scripting is awful. Trying to figure out what chain of commands you need to pull out that one particular piece of data from the output of that command... I've seen a dozen lines to manage it in some cases before, or calling out to a script in Awk or Perl. And then it won't work when you update your system because somebody decided to update a command's output format just slightly. Powershell is an object-oriented scripting language along the lines of something like Python, just with different syntax and more of a focus on managing services. It also has reasonable syntax for applying one command to the result of another - the pipe operator. And it's reasonable to use it in day-to-day usage as a command line. I've written a Powershell script to change an Exchange server setting we needed to change ever so often, faster than I could ever write a bash script to do the same. Under Linux, I'd likely have given up trying to use bash to edit a config, and just started writing an m4 file which generates the config as part of a cron job.
1wd 10y ago
This was exactly my reason for ignoring powershell for a long time. Just tested it and it seems to start much quicker now.

ygra 10y ago

Contrary to less, PowerShell is definitely not backwards-compatible with cmd. Microsoft has changed cmd a select few times, most notably adding command extensions around NT 4, I think. But those changes were very careful not to break existing scripts (which means delayed expansion is always disabled by default). If vi acts a little bit different, or more accepts other keys that don't scroll a whole page, it's also not a big deal because those are tools people interact with, not programs. People are a bit more flexible with change. And Microsoft certainly changed a lot of things in our around its user interfaces. cmd is still around for the same reason sh is still around. For compatibility.

a_thro_away 10y ago
I disagree; would it be Unix/Linux without a bourne/csh/bash/whatever shell? Would Win3.x/NT/Win10 be the same without CMD.EXE? I have built, developed in both, heavily, and I say that Unix/Linux without a shell is not really Unix. But the Windows without a shell may disadvantage admins, but wouldn't be missed by the vat majority of users.

pjmlp 10y ago

Not sure, but the default install of HP-UX, Solaris, Aix, Tru64, ... are pretty bare bones. The last time I used one of those UNIXes (around 2006) everything seemed just like when I used UNIX for the first time in 1994. Actually my first step after a successful installation when doing Solaris administration in 2000 was to visit http://www.sunfreeware.com http://www.sunfreeware.com

ComodoHacker 10y ago

cmd.exe is not so fossil, it even get bugfixed from itme to time. But Windows still includes COMMAND.COM! Microsoft(R) Windows DOS (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001. C:\USERS\USER>ver Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] C:\USERS\USER>

chungy 10y ago
Disclaimer: Only the 32-bit x86 versions of Windows. Ones that include the NTVDM ;)

SixSigma 10y ago

But that was originally command.com, to command.exe to cmd.exe There is no "edit" or "edlin" any more or "ftp" or "telnet" or "tr" :(

ianai 10y ago
There's telnet. You have to install it though.
JdeBP 10y ago
There was never, to my knowledge, a command.exe .