6 ms·

More like C: \> instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS C: \> Cryptically named command with verbose arguments, that then goes on to fire a GUI windo

by mahmud 12y ago

More like C: \> instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS C: \> Cryptically named command with verbose arguments, that then goes on to fire a GUI window that requires manual intervention: that's the Microsoft way.

zaroth 12y ago
Not Any More, so we're told. I hope they prove it.
- TheOsiris 12y ago
  I'll believe it when they let me resize the cmd window
  - useerup 12y ago
    Windows 10 command prompt will indeed let you resize the window. It will even re-flow the text already written, i.e. a long string written that flowed across several lines will also flow back into one line, once the window gets wide enough.
    - krylon 12y ago
      FINALLY! \o/
  - SeanDav 12y ago
    You have always been able to resize the cmd window, not sure what you mean here.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - noinsight 12y ago
      Vertically yes, but horizontally it's capped.
      - SeanDav 12y ago
        Open cmd window, left click on icon on left of cmd title bar, adjust window size in Defaults and Properties. This includes, height, width and buffer size.
        pjc50 12y ago
        Unlike every other window, where you can change the horizontal size by dragging. It's a relic and I'm glad they're fixing it, but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad.
        ANTSANTS 12y ago
        >but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad. How is that a bad thing? Firefox was kinda stagnant before Chrome came around and took the performance throne, I don't see anyone criticizing Mozilla for that.
    - Mimu 12y ago
      How were you able to do that? I was only able to change the height of it personnally, very annoying.
- fournm 12y ago
  Considering a resizable cmd with real copy/paste support is part of Windows 10, I'm cautiously optimistic.
ygra 12y ago
I take it you haven't used PowerShell much ...
- fetbaffe 12y ago
  I have tried PowerShell a few times but I can't never appreciate it. Yes, it technical superior than it's counterparts on Linux by piping objects instead of mangling text, but the syntax of PowerShell is just too convoluted. I have concluded that when doing command line you want to write commands and not program code to execute. That's why bash is usually straight on and powerful for the 95% commands you do. It's edge cases when you need to do horrible awk piping and general guess work. PowerShell feels the other way around. Easy for the 5% edge cases, but pain for the 95% common stuff. Yes, you can create aliases in PowerShell for the most common tasks, but then you don't really learn the powerful mechanics that you need to know. And it does not help that you need to learn one more scripting language. Microsoft should have gone for JavaScript. Maybe I'm missing something in the greatness of PowerShell?
  - ygra 12y ago
    My point here was mostly that instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS is something that doesn't really exist anymore for management tools on Windows, except those that have been around for a long time. Even the GUIs on Windows Server nowadays just drive a PowerShell runspace behind the scenes and you can script just as easily as click around. Install-Package is a PowerShell cmdlet and thus gets sane and consistent argument parsing and discovery for free. Something like instpkg32.exe simply won't exist for a new feature here. As for your complaints, I can gladly answer them and other questions, but it's probably a bit OT here.
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      Sane and consistent are two words I would never use with Powershell. Well, it's consistently insane, but I imagine that's not a typo. Or-Do-You-Enjoy-Over-Verbose-Capitals-And-Dashes-As-You-Enjoy-Shift-Ballet?
wmt 12y ago
Good job at not reading the article! Had you read it, you would've learned that the commands work like this: Find-Package Firefox Install-Package Firefox I admit it's not as easy as on e.g. Debian: sudo apt-get remove iceweasel sudo echo deb http://packages.linuxmint.com debian import >>/etc/apt/sources.list sudo gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 3EE67F3D0FF405B2 sudo gpg --export 3EE67F3D0FF405B2 > 3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo apt-key add ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo rm ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install firefox
- hk__2 12y ago
  This is a deliberately contrived example, the only line that matter is the last one: sudo apt-get install firefox
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - awalton 12y ago
    Firefox isn't in the Debian repos, unfortunately. But Iceweasel is installed by default on the desktop, so there's that. Unfortunately, Iceweasel is chronically behind mainline Firefox and suffers from many horrifying bugs that make it almost not worth the effort to try to use, which is why the grandparent comment goes through so much effort (Well, outside of the obviously well planted troll.) Also, Linux Mint is a terrible way to get Firefox for Debian. You're better off installing it from the "Ubuntuzilla" repo, which contains just Mozilla components built for Debian-based OSes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntuzilla/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntuzilla/ (Ignore the hellhole that Sourceforge has become). Honestly, I wish Mozilla would just create a Debian repo (and one with Nightlies would be nice), but I understand the scorched earth there...
    - johnward 12y ago
      This is the problem I have with a lot of software. We're supposed to use redhat, for example, but don't subscribe to the RHEL repos. So I then I have to go add EPEL repos or find whatever repo the actual piece of software I want is in. Like google chrome, each time I can remember where to get it.

by mahmud 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago

Not Any More, so we're told. I hope they prove it.

TheOsiris 12y ago
I'll believe it when they let me resize the cmd window
- useerup 12y ago
  Windows 10 command prompt will indeed let you resize the window. It will even re-flow the text already written, i.e. a long string written that flowed across several lines will also flow back into one line, once the window gets wide enough.
  - krylon 12y ago
    FINALLY! \o/
- SeanDav 12y ago
  You have always been able to resize the cmd window, not sure what you mean here.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - noinsight 12y ago
    Vertically yes, but horizontally it's capped.
    - SeanDav 12y ago
      Open cmd window, left click on icon on left of cmd title bar, adjust window size in Defaults and Properties. This includes, height, width and buffer size.
      - pjc50 12y ago
        Unlike every other window, where you can change the horizontal size by dragging. It's a relic and I'm glad they're fixing it, but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad.
        ANTSANTS 12y ago
        >but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad. How is that a bad thing? Firefox was kinda stagnant before Chrome came around and took the performance throne, I don't see anyone criticizing Mozilla for that.
  - Mimu 12y ago
    How were you able to do that? I was only able to change the height of it personnally, very annoying.
fournm 12y ago
Considering a resizable cmd with real copy/paste support is part of Windows 10, I'm cautiously optimistic.

ygra 12y ago

I take it you haven't used PowerShell much ...

fetbaffe 12y ago
I have tried PowerShell a few times but I can't never appreciate it. Yes, it technical superior than it's counterparts on Linux by piping objects instead of mangling text, but the syntax of PowerShell is just too convoluted. I have concluded that when doing command line you want to write commands and not program code to execute. That's why bash is usually straight on and powerful for the 95% commands you do. It's edge cases when you need to do horrible awk piping and general guess work. PowerShell feels the other way around. Easy for the 5% edge cases, but pain for the 95% common stuff. Yes, you can create aliases in PowerShell for the most common tasks, but then you don't really learn the powerful mechanics that you need to know. And it does not help that you need to learn one more scripting language. Microsoft should have gone for JavaScript. Maybe I'm missing something in the greatness of PowerShell?
- ygra 12y ago
  My point here was mostly that instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS is something that doesn't really exist anymore for management tools on Windows, except those that have been around for a long time. Even the GUIs on Windows Server nowadays just drive a PowerShell runspace behind the scenes and you can script just as easily as click around. Install-Package is a PowerShell cmdlet and thus gets sane and consistent argument parsing and discovery for free. Something like instpkg32.exe simply won't exist for a new feature here. As for your complaints, I can gladly answer them and other questions, but it's probably a bit OT here.
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    Sane and consistent are two words I would never use with Powershell. Well, it's consistently insane, but I imagine that's not a typo. Or-Do-You-Enjoy-Over-Verbose-Capitals-And-Dashes-As-You-Enjoy-Shift-Ballet?

wmt 12y ago

Good job at not reading the article! Had you read it, you would've learned that the commands work like this: Find-Package Firefox Install-Package Firefox I admit it's not as easy as on e.g. Debian: sudo apt-get remove iceweasel sudo echo deb http://packages.linuxmint.com debian import >>/etc/apt/sources.list sudo gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 3EE67F3D0FF405B2 sudo gpg --export 3EE67F3D0FF405B2 > 3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo apt-key add ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo rm ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install firefox

hk__2 12y ago
This is a deliberately contrived example, the only line that matter is the last one: sudo apt-get install firefox
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- awalton 12y ago
  Firefox isn't in the Debian repos, unfortunately. But Iceweasel is installed by default on the desktop, so there's that. Unfortunately, Iceweasel is chronically behind mainline Firefox and suffers from many horrifying bugs that make it almost not worth the effort to try to use, which is why the grandparent comment goes through so much effort (Well, outside of the obviously well planted troll.) Also, Linux Mint is a terrible way to get Firefox for Debian. You're better off installing it from the "Ubuntuzilla" repo, which contains just Mozilla components built for Debian-based OSes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntuzilla/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntuzilla/ (Ignore the hellhole that Sourceforge has become). Honestly, I wish Mozilla would just create a Debian repo (and one with Nightlies would be nice), but I understand the scorched earth there...
  - johnward 12y ago
    This is the problem I have with a lot of software. We're supposed to use redhat, for example, but don't subscribe to the RHEL repos. So I then I have to go add EPEL repos or find whatever repo the actual piece of software I want is in. Like google chrome, each time I can remember where to get it.