4 ms·

> They have shells, so we should have it also The thought process was more like "You can either hire a dude to do it by mouse in MMC or you can get someone wit

by 13of40 5y ago

> They have shells, so we should have it also The thought process was more like "You can either hire a dude to do it by mouse in MMC or you can get someone with a masters in CS to do it in DCOM. We need a middle ground." Source: was in the room

rjzzleep 5y ago
Can you elaborate?
- pjc50 5y ago
  Not OP, but: MMC = Microsoft Management Console, the collection of "snap in" GUI config tools for all the advanced features beyond Control Panel. MMC can control remote computers, but I believe only one at a time? Unless it's something through Group Policy. Now, the APIs exist to do all this remotely (DCOM), but good luck discovering what they are! And the minimum level of program you'd need to call them would be a C# project. So, Microsoft knew that UNIX systems had an API that was interactive, scriptable, discoverable, and composable, all the things which CMD and MMC and DCOM aren't. So they decided to build one. And make it object-orientated. It's actually pretty good for the administration use-case, but for more general work it feels weird. And it doesn't interact with text files anywhere near as good as shell does.
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    Everything you say is accurate, but it doesn't really relate to his claim for the reasoning behind the decisions behind Powershell. That's what I was referring to when I asked for a more detailed elaboration.
    - 13of40 5y ago
      I worked in Windows Server on admin tools in the late 90s and 2000s, and watched the whole thing happen. I heard it summed up like that from Ballmer himself. I don't know what your alternative idea is - you think Microsoft was jealous of Linux and spent a hundred million dollars making a new shell just so they could feel proud?
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    Some snapins can connect to multiple servers/computers at once, such as the DHCP MMC snapin. Others can't, like Event Viewer. IMHO Microsoft went all-in on the object-oriented paradigm and tuned the operating system to work with C++ ABIs and expecting administrators to use tools that use Microsoft or vendor provided DLLs.

by 13of40 5y ago

rjzzleep 5y ago

Can you elaborate?

pjc50 5y ago
Not OP, but: MMC = Microsoft Management Console, the collection of "snap in" GUI config tools for all the advanced features beyond Control Panel. MMC can control remote computers, but I believe only one at a time? Unless it's something through Group Policy. Now, the APIs exist to do all this remotely (DCOM), but good luck discovering what they are! And the minimum level of program you'd need to call them would be a C# project. So, Microsoft knew that UNIX systems had an API that was interactive, scriptable, discoverable, and composable, all the things which CMD and MMC and DCOM aren't. So they decided to build one. And make it object-orientated. It's actually pretty good for the administration use-case, but for more general work it feels weird. And it doesn't interact with text files anywhere near as good as shell does.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  Everything you say is accurate, but it doesn't really relate to his claim for the reasoning behind the decisions behind Powershell. That's what I was referring to when I asked for a more detailed elaboration.
  - 13of40 5y ago
    I worked in Windows Server on admin tools in the late 90s and 2000s, and watched the whole thing happen. I heard it summed up like that from Ballmer himself. I don't know what your alternative idea is - you think Microsoft was jealous of Linux and spent a hundred million dollars making a new shell just so they could feel proud?
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  Some snapins can connect to multiple servers/computers at once, such as the DHCP MMC snapin. Others can't, like Event Viewer. IMHO Microsoft went all-in on the object-oriented paradigm and tuned the operating system to work with C++ ABIs and expecting administrators to use tools that use Microsoft or vendor provided DLLs.