4 ms·

Windows just makes it difficult for developers. Or at least difficult for developers not using microsoft stacks. Why not have a bash compatible shell or at le

by mcot2 13y ago

Windows just makes it difficult for developers. Or at least difficult for developers not using microsoft stacks. Why not have a bash compatible shell or at least built-in common programs like ssh and tar?? Even the "power shell" is pretty garbage and has a lot of legacy cmd.exe stuff in it. Where are the tabs!!!

kemayo 13y ago
When I'm using the command line on Windows I wind up using ConEmu [1], which gets me the sort of baseline terminal emulator experience I expect from other OSes. I also tend to be using the bash shell installed with the official Git distribution [2], which gets me all those handy *nix commands. Should the default be better? Absolutely. But this works for now. [1]: https://code.google.com/p/conemu-maximus5/ https://code.google.com/p/conemu-maximus5/ [2]: http://git-scm.com/downloads http://git-scm.com/downloads
stephengillie 13y ago
Linuxes just make it difficult for developers. Or at least difficult for developers not using LAMP stacks. Why not have a CMD compatible shell or at least built-in common programs like rdp and smb?? Even the terminal is clunky and uses bizarre archaic commands. Where is the gui!!!
- tr4656 13y ago
  Not sure if you are being sarcastic for the sake of being sarcastic or are actually serious.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    It's a little of both. I like the ideas behind Linux, distros, and FOSS in general, but having grown up in the shadow of Redmond means I'm frustratingly out of my element when trying to set up RasBMC or Raspbian.
    - tr4656 13y ago
      Theres always time to learn. You can always try experimenting via VMs on your main computer or simply reading. I can't imagine that RasBMC would be too hard to set up considering its more or less GUI based.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  Difficult in what way? Certain distros come with things like RDP and SMB bundled, and I've never met anyone who actually prefers Window's DOS shell (or whatever it is now) over bash or zsh. There are sometimes GUIs, but for the most part it's just an extra layer of gunk (at least for me). I partially understand people's need for a GUI, but I just don't get it myself.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    The biggest benefits I receive from a GUI are: 1. all details, functions, settings options, etc are explicitly laid out 2. I don't need to remember the command for a setting, nor look it up. I can change a setting with just a couple mouse clicks. True, there are situations when these are both false, but a well-designed GUI will provide both of these benefits, and maybe even default settings. Enough to get a new user off the ground or enough to give advanced users a hint about why a feature doesn't work right.
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      > 1. all details, functions, settings options, etc are explicitly laid out The same is true for a well written man page. > 2. I don't need to remember the command for a setting, nor look it up. I can change a setting with just a couple mouse clicks. You still have to remember where the setting is located. You'll still keeping track of a piece of data, but instead of text it's location. Rather than clicking around through a menu, trying to remember where a specific setting is kept in the GUI, I can open the config file, search for the option I want to change, and quickly adjust it. Same for options, opening up a man page and searching for keywords is a lot nicer, to me, than randomly choosing an option to see if it's what I want. Plus, I really like tab complete, especially for files, and would rather use that than a file chooser. I'm not saying it's bad for you, just that those aren't advantages for everyone (specifically, me).

by mcot2 13y ago

kemayo 13y ago

When I'm using the command line on Windows I wind up using ConEmu [1], which gets me the sort of baseline terminal emulator experience I expect from other OSes. I also tend to be using the bash shell installed with the official Git distribution [2], which gets me all those handy *nix commands. Should the default be better? Absolutely. But this works for now. [1]: https://code.google.com/p/conemu-maximus5/ https://code.google.com/p/conemu-maximus5/ [2]: http://git-scm.com/downloads http://git-scm.com/downloads

stephengillie 13y ago

Linuxes just make it difficult for developers. Or at least difficult for developers not using LAMP stacks. Why not have a CMD compatible shell or at least built-in common programs like rdp and smb?? Even the terminal is clunky and uses bizarre archaic commands. Where is the gui!!!

tr4656 13y ago
Not sure if you are being sarcastic for the sake of being sarcastic or are actually serious.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  It's a little of both. I like the ideas behind Linux, distros, and FOSS in general, but having grown up in the shadow of Redmond means I'm frustratingly out of my element when trying to set up RasBMC or Raspbian.
  - tr4656 13y ago
    Theres always time to learn. You can always try experimenting via VMs on your main computer or simply reading. I can't imagine that RasBMC would be too hard to set up considering its more or less GUI based.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
dkuntz2 13y ago
Difficult in what way? Certain distros come with things like RDP and SMB bundled, and I've never met anyone who actually prefers Window's DOS shell (or whatever it is now) over bash or zsh. There are sometimes GUIs, but for the most part it's just an extra layer of gunk (at least for me). I partially understand people's need for a GUI, but I just don't get it myself.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  The biggest benefits I receive from a GUI are: 1. all details, functions, settings options, etc are explicitly laid out 2. I don't need to remember the command for a setting, nor look it up. I can change a setting with just a couple mouse clicks. True, there are situations when these are both false, but a well-designed GUI will provide both of these benefits, and maybe even default settings. Enough to get a new user off the ground or enough to give advanced users a hint about why a feature doesn't work right.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    > 1. all details, functions, settings options, etc are explicitly laid out The same is true for a well written man page. > 2. I don't need to remember the command for a setting, nor look it up. I can change a setting with just a couple mouse clicks. You still have to remember where the setting is located. You'll still keeping track of a piece of data, but instead of text it's location. Rather than clicking around through a menu, trying to remember where a specific setting is kept in the GUI, I can open the config file, search for the option I want to change, and quickly adjust it. Same for options, opening up a man page and searching for keywords is a lot nicer, to me, than randomly choosing an option to see if it's what I want. Plus, I really like tab complete, especially for files, and would rather use that than a file chooser. I'm not saying it's bad for you, just that those aren't advantages for everyone (specifically, me).