Microsoft Replaces Command Prompt with PowerShell in Latest Windows 10 Build (softpedia.com)

Don't forget... by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2016-11-18 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.

Usable!

Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:00 · Score: 3, Informative

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it
Re:Don't forget... by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2016-11-18 03:13 · Score: 1, Troll

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it
Interesting, if true. However: command text or it didn't happen.
To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.
Re:Don't forget... by FreelanceWizard · 2016-11-18 03:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Open Powershell as administrator and type:
set-executionpolicy unrestricted -scope localmachine -force
Alternatively, set it through Group Policy (Policies\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows Powershell\Turn on Script Execution, set to "Allow all scripts").

--
The Freelance Wizard
Re:Don't forget... by lgw · 2016-11-18 03:24 · Score: 1, Troll

Usable!
Now MS has reached the level of usability of naming commands intuitive things like "grep", only with lots more typing.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Don't forget... by The-Ixian · 2016-11-18 03:40 · Score: 2

You can always set aliases for any cmdlet. There are many aliases which come out of the box with PS. For example: wget is the default alias for Invoke-WebRequest
I personally like the verbosity of the commands. Of course, I am always the guy who uses the logopts in Linux commands anyway (--verbose).
Besides, if you are using the ISE or the PS console, you can tab complete the cmdlet names as well as the arguments so it is not a lot of extra typing.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:Don't forget... by bdh · 2016-11-18 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

You think Betty Sue is not capable of running anything more than one command-line tool and will be befuddled by this change, yet you think Linux is the alternative?
People who have trouble with "copy", "type", and "dir" rarely find "cp", "cat" and "ls" easier or more intuitive.
Re:Don't forget... by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-11-18 03:52 · Score: 1

>> set it through Group Policy nope, that won't won't be allowed either.
Right. Of course it won't. Because... reasons.

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
Re:Don't forget... by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-11-18 03:53 · Score: 1

Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.
If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of. Just running commands interactively doesn't require this at all.

As has been explained elsewhere, it's a one-time thing per account, and can be administered globally in multiple ways.

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

which ain't gonna happen on tens of millions of corporate desktops...
Millions of corporate desktops won't need it. How many accountants do you know that regularly use the windows command prompt? This is a power-user feature, and if there is a business justification for allowing it, it will be set as a Group Policy on the desktops of the people who need it.

nope, that won't be allowed either
Why not? Every IT organization I'm aware of evaluates requests based on their business need. Which means that if you have a legitimate business need to run unsigned powershell scripts, it will be enabled. If you want to run unsigned powershell scripts "because I'm a l33t hax0rz", then yeah, they'll deny you as well they should.
You're also forgetting the third option: Create a personal signing certificate for yourself, add that certificate to your local Trusted Publishers store, and you're off and running just fine with anything you want to sign locally. Which is arguably a better solution than "allow any script whatsoever", and certainly gives the local "power user" the ability to do what they need to.
Re:Don't forget... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-18 04:01 · Score: 2

>> Open Powershell as administrator
which ain't gonna happen on tens of millions of corporate desktops...
I work in government IT and admins have full access to PowerShell scripting.

>> set it through Group Policy
nope, that won't won't be allowed either.
Admin accounts should be separate from ordinary user accounts. I access my admin account with a security token and my regular user account with my PIV card.

I see only pain ahead, and it's going to be felt worst by Betty Sues' who run this one command-line tool once a day/week on their shitty seven-year-old Dell desktop to their job, and the managers who will ask IT why they are getting screwed again. Maybe this is how the "year of the Linux Desktop" finally gets going?
Love it when users and managers play the victim game and blame IT. Even more funny when I replace their computer with a box of crayons.
Re:Don't forget... by Creepy · 2016-11-18 04:08 · Score: 1

Opening powershell scripts global execution policy all the time seems dangerous, kind of like running as root all the time. I recall scripting that in a bat file or something and running the bat as administrator (to do powershell installs on Windows 10 beta), but it's been a while. I've been on web dev for the last year and a half, so that stuff is long behind me.
Re:Don't forget... by lgw · 2016-11-18 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

You can always set aliases for any cmdlet.

Which does wonders when sharing scripts with your team/friends.
Heck, think of this in terms of what you're going to have to repeat 3 times over the phone to elderly relatives. (OK, I just tell them "get a Mac" and then "oh, I know nothing about Mac, try my brother", but my solution may not be general.)

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 04:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Betty Sue (BS), will call the help desk and they will tell her to open Settings, go to Personalization, TaskBar, and turn the Powershell replaces CMD option off. Problem solved. Or does nobody realize that the option is right there in settings? I turned it off right away. If I want to start powershell I will. Normally I just want CMD.
Re:Don't forget... by tepples · 2016-11-18 04:36 · Score: 2

If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.
Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.
Re:Don't forget... by cyberchondriac · 2016-11-18 04:56 · Score: 1

Glad to hear that, because I hate the syntax of PowerShell.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Don't forget... by ColdWetDog · 2016-11-18 05:03 · Score: 2

This is such an old complaint. These days you send your relatives (especially your relatives) to the very friendly Windows telephone support folks who called you the other day.
Win, win. So to speak.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Don't forget... by chipschap · 2016-11-18 05:14 · Score: 1

Even more funny when I replace their computer with a box of crayons.
I have to remember this trick. I think it would make many users far more productive.
Re:Don't forget... by chipschap · 2016-11-18 05:17 · Score: 2

Now you know why I installed Cygwin & mintty.
Now you know why, on every new computer I've had for years now, right out of the box I've wiped the hard drive and installed Linux.
Re:Don't forget... by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-11-18 05:24 · Score: 1

If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.
Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.
1} You don't. I'm not a dev, but I'm pretty sure you pay to sign your code if you need it signed. It's interesting. On a platform I administer and the right and need to run scripts on, I have the ability to temporarily or permanently permit unsigned to code to run. On systems where I don't have the ability to set execution policy, what business do I have running arbitrary unsigned scripts?
2} More importantly, my point was that using interactive commands doesn't require changing execution policy.

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 05:30 · Score: 1

The execution policy can be set per user. This doesn't require administrative rights.
Set-ExecutionPolicy -Scope CurrentUser Unrestricted
Most desktop users will never need to run a script on their computer and literally wouldn't recognize one if they saw one. The default choice made by Microsoft is a sensible one, which can be trivially changed on a needed basis.
Re:Don't forget... by MightyMartian · 2016-11-18 05:34 · Score: 1

The operating system's permissions model itself is supposed to prevent stupid or evil users from doing stupid or evil things. The execution policy is just security theater.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Don't forget... by trogdor8667 · 2016-11-18 05:49 · Score: 1

Serious question...
Starting with Windows 10, I've found that Microsoft seems to reset a lot of security preferences with every single windows update that runs. Case in point: UAC. It turns back on each time.
Does this stick around past an update?
Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 07:08 · Score: 1

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it
Interesting, if true. However: command text or it didn't happen.
To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.
But in spite of knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, you feel free to make a bad suggestion on the topic and demand proof that you're wrong.
Re:Don't forget... by oh_my_080980980 · 2016-11-18 07:24 · Score: 1

Thank you!
Re:Don't forget... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-18 07:42 · Score: 1

Love it when ass-holes post bullshit.
I wouldn't be working in IT if I wasn't an asshole. Someone has to get the job done.

You seem to assume that non power users or non-admins don't use the command prompt or wouldn't have the need.
Non-admin users have no use case for PowerShell scripting, as 99.9% of them are non-technical. The few power users we have are masters of the Excel spreadsheet macros.

You also assume powershell isn't bloatware.
PowerShell is an IT tool.
Re:Don't forget... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2016-11-18 07:51 · Score: 2

It's called "Breaking things that work." It's not OK when Linux does it, and it's not OK when Microsoft does it.
Re:Don't forget... by sexconker · 2016-11-18 07:52 · Score: 1

When you write your script, you can name your shit properly and describe it properly.
Then anyone using it will get a friendly error message saying their usage was wrong and showing what the correct usage is.
You also get tab completion for commandlets and arguments and even options for arguments.
I rarely use powershell but when I do I always appreciate the fact that it's actually pretty great. This is coming from a STRONK hater of nearly everything MS has done in the last 4 years.
Re: Don't forget... by fisted · 2016-11-18 07:53 · Score: 1

The irony.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Re:Don't forget... by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2016-11-18 08:02 · Score: 1

To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.
But in spite of knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, you feel free to make a bad suggestion on the topic and demand proof that you're wrong.
Yes. Because my point was that it's not exactly the height of usability to force the user to learn a magic incantation that they have to invoke before they can invoke any of the other magic incantations they need to invoke to get back to where they were before some jagweed at Microsoft decided to replace all the ancient, just-as-arbitrary-but-at-least-widely-understood incantations with a new set of incantations for no real reason.
Re:Don't forget... by FictionPimp · 2016-11-18 08:25 · Score: 1

Fine then, go edit your powershell profile, put the command in there. Now every time you open powershell it will be done for you. It's how I handle vmware's powercli extensions to powershell and the AD extensions, and my own extensions.
Re:Don't forget... by FictionPimp · 2016-11-18 08:28 · Score: 1

No, they are saying "We created this great new scripting language, but you really shouldn't run unsigned untrusted scripts without acknowledging you are taking a risk"
You can do anything you want at the prompt, only scripts require you to change these settings. If you turn on developer mode then all local scripts can be trusted by default as well. You could also sign your scripts to ensure this is not a problem.
Re:Don't forget... by Darinbob · 2016-11-18 10:28 · Score: 1

Everywhere else the history of Windows is about getting it dumber and dumber over time, assuming that the user doesn't know advanced stuff or doesn't want to deal with it. And then suddenly, bam, let's make an obtuse and complex command line tool the default. Not sure what they're thinking other than to ensure more attendance at Microsoft training and certification classes.
Re:Don't forget... by Darinbob · 2016-11-18 10:31 · Score: 1

Yes, yes, one can always do things in powershell. But it is STILL one of the most complex command lines out there. It feels bizarre that the OS that assumes the user is dumb in almost every decision they make would make a more complex command line the default. Anyone who knows how to use powershell *already* knows how to open it up quickly and easily and probably have it as their default anyway. The fall out is that now a lot of more casual users are going to be completely baffled.
Re:Don't forget... by bobmajdakjr · 2016-11-18 16:46 · Score: 1

win+r "cmd" for lyfe.

what about COMMAND.COM? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 02:50 · Score: 5, Funny

If they get rid of COMMAND.COM, I'm going straight back to CP/M.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by unixisc · 2016-11-18 03:15 · Score: 1

Will the DOS commands I so know and love still work under POWERSHELL.EXE? If I type CMD in the search panel in the taskbar, will POWERSHELL be what pops up?
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by sims+2 · 2016-11-18 03:57 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I should be surprised or annoyed to find that COMMAND.COM is owned by 3M.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Re: what about COMMAND.COM? by ColdWetDog · 2016-11-18 05:11 · Score: 1

so it will require learning a lot of things...
There's always a catch.....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re: what about COMMAND.COM? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 05:22 · Score: 1

Of course, "dir -r -n" does work
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by The+Raven · 2016-11-18 05:47 · Score: 1

If they get rid of COMMAND.COM, I'm going straight back to CP/M.
Spoken like a true, future focused IT professional willing to learn new things.
Or, you know... not.

--
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by RKThoadan · 2016-11-18 06:33 · Score: 1

The vast majority of the commands are aliased so that they do work. However, the switches and options for the commands are all messed up. dir works fine. dir with any options does not. (same for ls) There are some edge cases where you'll have to put .exe in so it knows what you want. I use sc (service controller) from cmd all the time, but in Powershell that's the short version of Set-Content, so If I want to use it in Powershell I have to specify sc.exe.
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by unixisc · 2016-11-18 06:46 · Score: 1

So dir /w/p won't work? Okay. What about if I type 'help'? Will I get the full list of PowerShell commands?
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by hAckz0r · 2016-11-18 06:47 · Score: 2

8080 > PIP C:COPY.COM=C:PIP.COM
Gates: There, fixed it to work better! (CP/M ==> QDOS Quick and Dirty OS, aka. PC-DOS).
IBM: Well, except all the arguments are all backwards. How do we ever fix that? How will we ever sell this thing? Nobody will ever figure out how to use it now...
Gates: Easy, I'll write a contract to force everyone to buy a copy along with the machine. Just like selling a car with an engine.
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by afidel · 2016-11-18 06:55 · Score: 1

However, the switches and options for the commands are all messed up
The worst in that regard is netsh where there are things you simply can't do through the aliased version.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by RKThoadan · 2016-11-18 07:10 · Score: 1

Nope. To get a list of all powershell commands you use 'get-command'. Mine shows 465 commands, but I have a few additional providers installed. Usually the real help is opening a browser and typing 'Powershell x' into your search engine of choice.
For your enjoyment here is the really horrible output of 'help'.
TOPIC
Windows PowerShell Help System
SHORT DESCRIPTION
Displays help about Windows PowerShell cmdlets and concepts.
LONG DESCRIPTION
Windows PowerShell Help describes Windows PowerShell cmdlets,
functions, scripts, and modules, and explains concepts, including
the elements of the Windows PowerShell language.
Windows PowerShell does not include help files, but you can read the
help topics online, or use the Update-Help cmdlet to download help files
to your computer and then use the Get-Help cmdlet to display the help
topics at the command line.
You can also use the Update-Help cmdlet to download updated help files
as they are released so that your local help content is never obsolete.
Without help files, Get-Help displays auto-generated help for cmdlets,
functions, and scripts.
ONLINE HELP
You can find help for Windows PowerShell online in the TechNet Library
beginning at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink....
To open online help for any cmdlet or function, type:
Get-Help -Online
UPDATE-HELP
To download and install help files on your computer:
1. Start Windows PowerShell with the "Run as administrator" option.
2. Type:
Update-Help
After the help files are installed, you can use the Get-Help cmdlet to
display the help topics. You can also use the Update-Help cmdlet to
download updated help files so that your local help files are always
up-to-date.
For more information about the Update-Help cmdlet, type:
Get-Help Update-Help -Online
or go to: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink...
GET-HELP
The Get-Help cmdlet displays help at the command line from content in
help files on your computer. Without help files, Get-Help displays basic
help about cmdlets and functions. You can also use Get-Help to display
online help for cmdlets and functions.
To get help for a cmdlet, type:
Get-Help
To get online help, type:
Get-Help -Online
The titles of conceptual topics begin with "About_".
To get help for a concept or language element, type:
Get-Help About_
To search for a word or phrase in all help files, type:
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by RKThoadan · 2016-11-18 08:19 · Score: 1

It took it a few seconds but it eventually displayed what I'm assuming is the standard help screen for pip. 'pip list' worked fine and recommended upgrading pip with 'python -m pip install --upgrade pip' I tried that and it worked fine.
That was an interesting question though. I've never run any other scripting language from a powershell prompt. I'm a ruby guy myself. I don't even remember why I have python installed.
Re:what about COMMAND.COM? by fedos · 2016-11-18 08:34 · Score: 1

Curmudgeon.

Ubiquitous != Popular by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just because it's been around for a long time doesn't mean it's popular. Thank goodness for cygwin and bash.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:16 · Score: 1

You should try the new linux subsystem. I've stopped using cygwin.
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:37 · Score: 1

You should try the new linux subsystem. I've stopped using cygwin.
what a great idea, rewrite all my scripts for no good reason
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by Rob+Y. · 2016-11-18 04:19 · Score: 1

This. There's nothing wrong with providing a powerful new scripting language - for y'know, scripting. But there's also a need for a simple way to string a bunch of commands together in a file and execute them all. Why on earth would they remove that - or make people re-string the commands they've 'scripted' and used for years? Not all command-line users are using it for System Administration. They sysadmins can already find their way to powershell. Why inconvenience the rest of us - just to try to get bash programmers to think Windows has something as good or better. Because, face it, that's what's driving this.

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by phantomfive · 2016-11-18 04:37 · Score: 1

Not to mention powershell can mess up redirects (especially with binary files) in ways that cmd.exe won't.......

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by dwillden · 2016-11-18 05:06 · Score: 1

It may not be popular but people know it. We've got over three decades of using those commands and that interface. If all cmd commands work, great. If not I foresee many complaints.

--
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by Junta · 2016-11-18 05:29 · Score: 1

I never was a fan of the cygwin setup, I'm a much bigger fan of the way git for windows does bash. Then I don't have a distinct 'linux' environment from the 'native' environment.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Ubiquitous != Popular by MightyMartian · 2016-11-18 05:37 · Score: 1

And not to mention when I click on my CMD.EXE link, a CLI window with a command prompt appears almost instantly, but with Powershell, I can wait several seconds while it gathers together all the .NET bits it needs to run before I can actually enter a command. Whatever else one may think of Powershell (and I think it is overly verbose and just plain fucking awful), resource friendly it most definitely is not.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

If they really wanted to fix it... by yorgasor · 2016-11-18 02:53 · Score: 1

... they'd just replace the command shell with the linux bash shell they just added!

--
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out

Re:If they really wanted to fix it... by slashdice · 2016-11-18 03:27 · Score: 1

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."

--
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Re:If they really wanted to fix it... by The-Ixian · 2016-11-18 03:53 · Score: 2

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."
Did he officially change his name or something?

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:If they really wanted to fix it... by beernutz · 2016-11-18 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hmmmm.. Pretty sure it is a recursive acronym: Linux = "Linux Is Not UniX" Kind of like GNU = "GNU is Not Unix".

--
(stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
Re:If they really wanted to fix it... by strikethree · 2016-11-18 05:42 · Score: 2

If you mean backronym, then maybe. I read what you said and knew it was wrong immediately but I went ahead and looked it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The relevant section is this:
Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention Freax, a portmanteau of "free", "freak", and "x" (as an allusion to Unix).
...
Ari Lemmke, Torvalds' coworker at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) who was one of the volunteer administrators for the FTP server at the time, did not think that "Freax" was a good name. So, he named the project "Linux" on the server without consulting Torvalds.[12] Later, however, Torvalds consented to "Linux".

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:If they really wanted to fix it... by fisted · 2016-11-18 07:59 · Score: 1

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."
Actually, "Lunix" stands for "Losers' unix".
Love from BSDland

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

As long as cygwin works by Snotnose · 2016-11-18 02:53 · Score: 2

they can do whatever they want to the command line.

Re:As long as cygwin works by Austerity+Empowers · 2016-11-18 03:03 · Score: 1

If you're asking the wrong questions about Windows, you're studying for a liberal arts degree.
Re:As long as cygwin works by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 04:03 · Score: 1

Some of us have a particular answer (Windows) forced on us regardless of the question.
In that context cygwin is like being sent to hell but being allowed to wear an air-conditioned suit. Sure, it's still hell, but at least you can mitigate the problem a little.
Powershell is nice in principle but until August it didn't run on any of the other platforms I regularly use. Bash has been there for ages. As nice as Powershell is I don't feel like reinventing the wheel and making the the inevitable discovery that it's probably a second-class implementation on anything but Windows. Oh, wait, scratch that -- I already know it's second-class, being only "Powershell Core". Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it will take years before it is truly cross-platform, if it ever happens. Whereas I can port bash or most other script languages between cygwin, OS X and Linux with few issues.
Re:As long as cygwin works by DrXym · 2016-11-18 07:35 · Score: 1

Msys Bash is better than Cygwin for anyone wanting to run bash on Windows. Best out-of-the-box solution so far is probably Git for Windows installer which includes bash and a bunch of other stuff required to keep git happy. It works regardless of someone using Windows 10 or something earlier.
Re:As long as cygwin works by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-18 08:33 · Score: 1

Using the 'git environment' is actually what I do most of the time when I'm forced to use Windows.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:As long as cygwin works by thegarbz · 2016-11-18 08:52 · Score: 1

Cygwin? Why use that when you can run Linux natively?
Re:As long as cygwin works by Ash-Fox · 2016-11-18 23:37 · Score: 1

Msys Bash is better than Cygwin for anyone wanting to run bash on Windows.
Honestly, I think Microsoft's "Bash on Ubuntu on Windows" is one of the best so far.

Best out-of-the-box solution so far is probably Git for Windows installer which includes bash and a bunch of other stuff required to keep git happy.

You do know that's actually just a small cygwin distribution, right?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:As long as cygwin works by DrXym · 2016-11-19 01:02 · Score: 1

Microsoft's Ubuntu only works on Windows 10, not much use on older versions of Windows.
Git for Windows uses an MinGW / Msys dist, not Cygwin.
Re:As long as cygwin works by Ash-Fox · 2016-11-19 02:59 · Score: 1

Microsoft's Ubuntu only works on Windows 10, not much use on older versions of Windows.

I guess you have a point for people that run outdated software, fortuantely I don't subscribe to that mentality.

Git for Windows uses an MinGW / Msys dist, not Cygwin.
I never really poked it very much, but I just installed it to check again and I don't really believe you when you say it doesn't use Cygwin for anything?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:As long as cygwin works by Ash-Fox · 2016-11-19 03:34 · Score: 1

Also it seems the vast majority of executable are statically compiled with cygwin references?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:As long as cygwin works by DrXym · 2016-11-19 22:17 · Score: 1

I'm glad that you're in a position to dictate precisely what development environment your company uses and what your customers use. I'm not. Aside from that the Bash runs over Windows subsystem for Linux. It is not a set of Unix tools that have been ported, compiled and running natively as Windows executables, rather it is a virtualized environment for running Linux binaries.
Secondly, Git for Windows DOES use Msys/MinGW. This is as easy to confirm by just installing it and looking at the directory called "mingw64" with all the Unix commands in it. Or typing "uname -a" from bash itself. The only references to cygwin are some minor interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support and suchlike for people in mixed environments.
Re:As long as cygwin works by Ash-Fox · 2016-11-19 22:49 · Score: 1

I'm glad that you're in a position to dictate precisely what development environment your company uses and what your customers use.
Honestly, if a large multi-national corporation like Deloitte can stay up to date much like my local dry cleaners, there is no excuse.
But yeah, obviously if you're going to use outdated software, you may as well use less efficient and other outdated software to get it working. I just won't subscribe to that mentality.

The only references to cygwin are some minor interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support and suchlike for people in mixed environments.
That's a lot of references... Seems a bit weird that even 'clear' needs "interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support" considering it's meant to just be a series of printfs...

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:As long as cygwin works by DrXym · 2016-11-20 08:09 · Score: 1

*Sigh* give it up. Git for Windows is built with MinGW and accompanied by MSYS binaries. The only reason cygwin is mentioned is for the reasons I cited, for compatibility / detection. If this is too much to take in, I suggest you email their mailing list and run your theory by them.

bash it! by guygo · 2016-11-18 02:54 · Score: 2

I see bash for Windows becoming a lot more popular in the near future.

Re:bash it! by YrWrstNtmr · 2016-11-18 02:58 · Score: 5, Funny

No, bashing Windows has long been a staple theme in here.
Re:bash it! by squiggleslash · 2016-11-18 03:52 · Score: 1

That was, to be fair, true anyway. Powershell is supposed to be an improvement on cmd.exe, but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it or tried to find out what it can do, so I'll reserve judgement.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:bash it! by afidel · 2016-11-18 07:13 · Score: 1

but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it
If that's even close to true then Slashdot has REALLY gone downhill from the early days. This used to be a place for geeky technical people who were into computers, even if you're not a primarily Windows person I would still expect you've run into them enough to have used Powershell (I'm primarily a Windows guy but I still know bash, tcsh, grep, tar, etc). If your job involves Windows to any degree beyond a groupware client and you don't know Powershell you're at a major disadvantage from this point forward as it's completely the direction that Windows and Microsoft server software is going (heck, they're now designing most of their stuff for o365 first and on-prem second so it's only natural that they want a powerful and robust CLI and API).

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:bash it! by squiggleslash · 2016-11-18 08:05 · Score: 1

In my experience, most of us learn huge amounts of stuff relevant to our little silo, but only have passing knowledge of advanced features of stuff outside of that silo.
Whenever the subject of Java comes up, for example, most of the responses about how well it works assume that Java is used to build desktop applications, and applets that run within web browsers. Java is almost never used in either platform, it's primarily used either on servers (at all levels, from data management to web services), or on Android phones (in its Android version.) [In my experience, it seems to be stagnant, perhaps even dying, on the former, but if you're looking for a Java job, most of the time you'll be offered work maintaining or extending backend software infrastructure.]
Powershell suffers from being an enhanced shell on an operating system whose native command line is so crude and ugly, the rest of the system has been built to work without it. So even programmers who primarily use Windows (albeit don't develop for Windows) don't spend much time even investigating stuff like Powershell, as they've already gotten used to using the point and click shell instead.
It's understandable. If it's a choice between learning how to use an advanced command line on an operating system designed not to use one, or a new Python programming framework, which do you think most readers here would spend their time on?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:bash it! by afidel · 2016-11-18 08:42 · Score: 1

It's understandable. If it's a choice between learning how to use an advanced command line on an operating system designed not to use one, or a new Python programming framework, which do you think most readers here would spend their time on?
Except as I said Windows and the larger MS ecosystem are moving to require Powershell knowledge to be effective. Many, many things simply can't be done through the GUI anymore, in fact that are quite a few that can't be done with any combination of batch, gpo, and GUI, you MUST use Powershell to do them as the management interface layers aren't exposed any other way. Just because it says Windows on the tin doesn't mean it's the same thing as Windows of old, MS is moving slowly but surely to a much more scalable management system (CLI and API's) because their own ambitions to be the hosting provider for the small to midmarket companies has forced them to face the limitations of their legacy model.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:bash it! by squiggleslash · 2016-11-18 09:15 · Score: 1

Many, many things simply can't be done through the GUI anymore, in fact that are quite a few that can't be done with any combination of batch, gpo, and GUI, you MUST use Powershell to do them as the management interface layers aren't exposed any other way

OK, but if you're not a Windows programmer, how many of those things are things you actually have to do?
I've been using GNOME in one form or another (sometimes GNOME-derived UIs like Unity) for the best part of 10 years. All this time I've been aware of gconf, and on one or two occasions I dove into it to try to fix a problem or two. But despite the fact it's where you have to go to change much of how GNOME works, I barely know it, and I find it almost impossible to get around it.
In the end I just want to get my work done, so I live with the slightly shitty UI (or use bash) rather than spend time learning how to customize it.
That's not to suggest the situation might not change, but literally nothing has come up that's ever required I learn Powershell - or if it has, I wouldn't have known it was Powershell I needed to look at in the first place.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by slaker · 2016-11-18 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know Powershell and it has been around for a while now, but it's almost always less mental effort on my part to string together shell commands than to open the Powershell ISE and read up on keywords and object attributes. It's habit, but I'd rather keep the thing I'm used to. I know bash scripting and perl too and I can be productive in perl but it's almost always faster for me just do what I need with bash, so I suppose the analogy is similar.

--
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-11-18 03:00 · Score: 1

Yes, I've learnt a lot of languages and syntaxes over the years so I know I'm capable of learning powershell too. That said, working with command prompt has always been second nature to me over the last few decades. Adjusting will be a little awkward.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Then just type in 'cmd' and you are set. They aren't removing the application.

...SNIP...Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.
From TFS...
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by The-Ixian · 2016-11-18 03:59 · Score: 1

I tend to agree.
When writing Windows scripts I always ask "Can I accomplish this with a simple batch script?" If no, I then move on to PS.
So, I have a lot of batch scripts out there. I would hope that explicitly calling the cmd.exe would still execute the actual cmd shell. If not, this will almost certainly break a lot of existing stuff. But MS would, of course, know this...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by nine-times · 2016-11-18 04:08 · Score: 1

I honestly think it's worth getting some passing familiarity with Powershell. If you're just running one-off commands, then most of those commands will still work in a Powershell window. If you're scripts to do much of anything, you can do more, better and more easily, once you get used to Powershell.
I'll grant you it's a bit of a learning curve, but it's worth it.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by The-Ixian · 2016-11-18 04:31 · Score: 1

If you already know Perl, it is pretty easy to pick up PowerShell. There are enough similarities that it makes it seem familiar. At least that was my experience.
Example:
PowerShell: function myLog{ (Get-Date).ToString() + ' - ' + $msg | Out-File $logFile -Append }
Perl: sub myLog{ open (LOG,">>$logFile"); print LOG `date`, ' - ', $msg, "\n"; close LOG; }
PowerShell: if ($something -eq 1) { Write-Host "yes" }
Perl: if ($someThing == 1) { print "yes\n"; }
PowerShell: foreach ($thing in $things) { Write-Host $thing }
Perl: foreach $thing (@things) { print $thing, "\n"; }

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by unrtst · 2016-11-18 05:55 · Score: 1

Then just type in 'cmd' and you are set. They aren't removing the application.
From the fucking summary, "Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well".
It'll still be fairly trivial to launch it, but not via any of the readily available and used methods.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by fnj · 2016-11-18 05:57 · Score: 1

So in other words Powershell is NOTHING WHATEVER LIKE perl.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by skids · 2016-11-18 06:19 · Score: 1

eww! They used "eq" for numeric comparisons? Gross.

--
Someone had to do it.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by ruir · 2016-11-18 07:12 · Score: 1

Change to FreeBSD and be done with it. At least what you will learn will be valid many years to come. MS has not the best interest in providing business continuity, and they interest now is ramming powershell down the users throats simply to leverage a monopoly and have less people objecting to use the language that controls their cloud services.
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by ruir · 2016-11-18 07:13 · Score: 1

Errrm...what prevents me from copying the cmd.exe binary and calling it ... sane_cmd.exe?
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-11-18 08:03 · Score: 1

That's not exactly my call... I'm unlikely to ever be in a corporate environment where FreeBSD is used. Sure, if I were so inclined I could install it at home, but I hardly touch a PC outside of work hours.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit by ruir · 2016-11-18 08:20 · Score: 1

Some of us are more lucky. I have been using Linux/*BSD as servers since 1996 and Apple as desktop/notebook since 2005 in a corporate environment.

Powershell is the devil's work! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft registered WindowsPowersHell.org for a reason, people!

Uhh, just add it back in. by SlithyMagister · 2016-11-18 03:04 · Score: 1

There are a few 3-rd party tools that will add items.
I can't see them removing cmd.exe altogether

As for adding items to the Explorer context menu, that is just a matter of editing the registry.

This is a BAD idea support wise by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love Powershell, but half the "admins" I've worked with still don't know how to really use it. It's not an enhanced command or command+, it's a completely different product that unfortunately looks similar enough that non-technical people are going to have no frigging idea what's going on.

This is going to cause a nightmare for call center staff who all have scripts that say something along the lines of "Open a command prompt and ...".

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by guruevi · 2016-11-18 03:13 · Score: 1

The problem is we don't need a Python-esque shell for C#, us admins just need to be able to run "ipconfig" and "shutdown -r" on a Windows box and perhaps the command to re-register the freaking serial code every other month.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by unixisc · 2016-11-18 03:20 · Score: 1

I think Microsoft should make an offline PDF manual available w/ the next update, which one can pull up if one needs to look something up. Accompany that w/ an online help if one wants to know WHICH powershell commands to use to fix something, such as, say, the number of rows of icons in tablet mode on a small tablet, if one wants >4.
Re: This is a BAD idea support wise by unixisc · 2016-11-18 03:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, but what if you're offline?
Re: This is a BAD idea support wise by tepples · 2016-11-18 04:41 · Score: 1

not too hard to google that stuff from your cell phone with a $50/mo voice and data plan
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by Junta · 2016-11-18 05:33 · Score: 1

Of course, it's not python-esque, it's much worse. It reminds more more of javascript or perl, but with less power than either in terms of syntax (yes, feature wise you can access all kinds of .net functions, but structuring your pure powershell is very limited and the syntax can be very hard to maintain).

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by Darth+Twon · 2016-11-18 05:53 · Score: 1

Make yourself familiar with the help system in PowerShell. Just like any decent Linux admin should be adept with man, any decent Windows admin should be adept with Get-Help.

--
Take this sig and smoke it.
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by ruir · 2016-11-18 07:14 · Score: 1

You do not speak for myself, yeah. Us admins run Linux and *BSD ;-P
Re: This is a BAD idea support wise by Overzeetop · 2016-11-18 07:30 · Score: 1

Spoken by someone who has never been under the gun to get the network back up while trying to download information from the internet via single bar 1G connection, which is all you'll get in the basement of a large building, where all the servers are.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by guruevi · 2016-11-18 07:59 · Score: 1

That's all I do to a Windows box before it needs wiping. We only run Mac, Linux and BSD boxes.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:This is a BAD idea support wise by Nethead · 2016-11-18 12:49 · Score: 1

You do not speak for myself, yeah. Us admins run Linux and *BSD ;-P
I'm a BSD head too but I did find that there is a lot of unixness in Powershell. Bruce Payette, co-designer of the PowerShell language and the principal author of the language implementation is also a Unix guy.
Try ls, cat, rm,mkdir, echo, more, chdir, etc in Powershell and you'll see that they are already aliased from the factory.
PowerShell is different but a very powerful tool when used on a networked system. You can fire off commands and inquires to the whole network with a single line. The add-on for Exchange can do some really cool things.
It's really one of the better things to come out of MS if you in an Active Directory environment.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

Is it still slow to launch? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:11 · Score: 1

It it still slow to launch? Every experience I've had with it is that it takes several seconds to become usable, even on a very fast machine.

Re:Is it still slow to launch? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:47 · Score: 1

This has always been my hangup - I hate the delay when starting up powershell (I think it's gotten a bit better, but it is still slower than cmd.exe)
Re:Is it still slow to launch? by Junta · 2016-11-18 05:34 · Score: 1

Yes, and rather than impreving the performance for real, they do things to try to cheat and cache.
Amazing given their situation that they are so much slower than any other scripted runtime to start.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

This will be a fun surprise by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-11-18 03:15 · Score: 1

Well, this will be a fun surprise for millions of people running command-line tools. Maybe that'll be my retirement career: "converting" CLI instructions and tools to the new world in Windows 10+.

Re:This will be a fun surprise by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-18 04:07 · Score: 1

PowerShell is older than dirt. Nothing new there. I work in government IT and we use PowerShell on Windows 7. I personally would like to use Python but that's not on the approved software list.
Re:This will be a fun surprise by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-19 04:58 · Score: 1

You have a strange concept of how old dirt is. Some of us remember using operating systems before Windows 7.
I made two separate statements about PowerShell. Your reading comprehension (or lack thereof) combined the two statements into one statement. Something can be older than dirt while still being in use today. The oldest operating system I've worked on was DOS 6 (pre-Windows). So get off my lawn!

I still don't want it by DrXym · 2016-11-18 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

The normal command prompt is simple, stupid and does what it's told. Powershell is like some esoteric, incompatible, overly complex thing that claims to do anything via cmdlets, scripts, functions etc. but ends up just complicating everything including the simple stuff. It doesn't even have the good grace to be a superset of command prompt or bash which would at least make it familiar.

I don't see how forcing people to use it is supposed to win people over or fail to piss off people who want the old command prompt.

Re:I still don't want it by SuiteSisterMary · 2016-11-18 03:34 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?
Here's a hint: works great. Powershell isn't a superset of cmd, but it implements cmd commands. You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.
This is kind of like complaining that your Linux distro is replacing sh with bash; all your old stuff will keep working, but now you have new options and abilities that you can slowly migrate to.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:I still don't want it by DrXym · 2016-11-18 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative

You can't issue dos/cmd commands. The likes of "dir" are aliases onto things in powershell which superficially resemble the old commands but function differently.
For example I can type "dir", but "dir /?" doesn't do a thing. So maybe the syntax is a bit different. Typing "dir -help" or "dir --help" issues an enormous error message that apparently I've done something wrong. Not helpful. Typing "help dir", tells me about something called "get-childitem" but essentially doesn't help at all except tell me to type "get-help Get-ChildItem -detailed". Eventually I get a wall of text which STILL doesn't correspond to the old syntax.
Would it have really killed Microsoft to make "dir" function like "dir"? Maybe later on when I'm comfortable and familiar with the powershell I might want call get-childitem for something. But it is FAR more important to me during transition that the thing is familiar and all the various .bat / .cmd scripts that I have actually survive the transition.
I should add that the command "ls" also aliases to "get-childitem". So Microsoft are equal-opportunity confounders.
Re:I still don't want it by bdh · 2016-11-18 03:47 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?
Yes.
Personally, I don't use either PowerShell or command shell, much preferring JPSoft's far superior Take Command to both of them. However, when I have had to use PowerShell, I've often used the "help" command, which is markedly different from the command shell's.
In PowerShell, type "help" and then type "cmd /c help" and see the difference. For those who rarely use the command shell, switching to PowerShell will not make life simpler.
Re:I still don't want it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 04:22 · Score: 1

much preferring JPSoft's far superior Take Command to both of them
so spending $100 to "fix" yet another boneheaded decision by microsoft is your proposed solution? and then what about fixing uncle joe's desktop during the holidays? another $100 there so i can run the same thing i'm now "used to" at home on his pc? fuck that shit.
Re:I still don't want it by macklin01 · 2016-11-18 04:32 · Score: 1

Its built-in linux-like commands don't appear to work as expected, I guess due to aliasing. "ls" is fine. But with any arguments, and I get stuff like this:
PS C:\mingw\bin> ls -l
Get-ChildItem : Missing an argument for parameter 'LiteralPath'. Specify a parameter of type 'Sys
again.
At line:1 char:4
+ ls -l
+ ~~
+ CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (:) [Get-ChildItem], ParameterBindingException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : MissingArgument,Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.GetChildItemCommand
I've been happy enough with cmd + mingw/msys. That got me ls, make, and all the same goodies with the same syntax as linux. But if Windows PS is going to have "ls", it should work like "ls" or get out of the way. (Just like they evidently do in linux and macos powershell.)

--
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
Re:I still don't want it by tepples · 2016-11-18 04:43 · Score: 1

You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine.
Wouldn't that try to render a page in a PostScript interpreter and then send it to the printer (or vice versa, depending on the printer model)?
Re:I still don't want it by bdh · 2016-11-18 05:11 · Score: 1

No, I spend $100 back in 1989 (when it was called 4DOS) because it allowed me to do a lot of things that the DOS command shell couldn't. And then 4OS/2 came out, and I could use the same scripts on my DOS and OS/2 boxes. And then 4NT came out (before it evolved into Take Command), and I got that.
I said I prefer it, because it allows me to use the strengths of the platform I'm on. Things like korn and bash are great on Solaris or Linux, but ports of them to Windows are dependent on the underlying tools that come with them, such as Cygwin. I can do more, faster, in TCC on Windows than I can in bash on Windows.
If your uncle Joe is using the command line and Windows 10, switching to PowerShell is probably a lot more painful than switching to TCC/LE. There is a free lite version. It's not as powerful as the commercial edition, of course, but it's still better than the default command shell, and, IMO, better than PowerShell.
But it you want to continue cursing the darkness, go ahead. It's your choice.
Re:I still don't want it by SuiteSisterMary · 2016-11-18 05:37 · Score: 1

If you're using cmd in 2016, chances are you don't need help using the 'dir' command.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:I still don't want it by Wolfrider · 2016-11-18 06:31 · Score: 1

+1 for jpsoft. From the first time I used NDOS from Norton Utilities, then moved on to 4DOS, I *instantly* preferred it to "command.com" and "CMD.EXE". Left it largely behind when I went to Linux as my primary OS, but still install it on all my Win7 legacy stuff.
The free version is called "tcc/le" on the site and there is also a 64-bit version "tcc/le x64".
Hopefully he will get more business from this (yet another!) asinine decision by MS, they have been really overtly stupid since Win8 came out and are continuing to get worse every month from the news I've been paying attention to. Honestly don't know why anyone would still plan to stay on a Windows platform after Win7 drops support; long-term, would be better to transition to Linux or Mac in the next 3 years and pay for software you need to be ported over.
There needs to be end-user outrage and blowback over crazy, out-of-touch decisions like this. NOBODY I know prefers Powershell over CMD, and older users are going to go nuts with frustration.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:I still don't want it by DrXym · 2016-11-18 06:38 · Score: 2

My point if it wasn't clear was there was no reason for incompatibility in the first place. If "dir" can be aliased to something called "Get-ChildItem", then it could have been aliased to something called "Get-Dos-Dir" which implemented the same arguments and behaviour as the CMD dir. The same applies for the other commands built into CMD - popd, pushd, cd, goto, if etc. plus any syntax for environment variable expansion, pipes, redirection etc. Even invoking the command "cmd" itself could have been implemented such that it correctly parsed and executed .bat and .cmd files all from Powershell.
If Microsoft had done this, then it wouldn't even be a point of discussion because cmd would be long gone. The problem was that Microsoft *didn't* do this. Cmd and Powershell ran in parallel, incompatible worlds and anyone concerned with all-too-real bullshit of different versions of .NET or Powershell on some random PC would have written their scripts for cmd as the lowest common denominator. And that's exactly what actually happened.
Meanwhile in Unix-land, bash was largely a superset of ksh was largely a superset of sh so migrating was easy and natural. Everyone uses bash and there's a reason for that. Can you guess?
Re:I still don't want it by clovis · 2016-11-18 06:53 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?
Here's a hint: works great. Powershell isn't a superset of cmd, but it implements cmd commands. You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.
This is kind of like complaining that your Linux distro is replacing sh with bash; all your old stuff will keep working, but now you have new options and abilities that you can slowly migrate to.
Powershell launches cmd.exe to execute .bat files in the same way that typing "names.txt" opens "names.txt" in notepad.
Re:I still don't want it by clovis · 2016-11-18 07:03 · Score: 1

You can't issue dos/cmd commands. The likes of "dir" are aliases onto things in powershell which superficially resemble the old commands but function differently.
For example I can type "dir", but "dir /?" doesn't do a thing. So maybe the syntax is a bit different. Typing "dir -help" or "dir --help" issues an enormous error message that apparently I've done something wrong. Not helpful. Typing "help dir", tells me about something called "get-childitem" but essentially doesn't help at all except tell me to type "get-help Get-ChildItem -detailed". Eventually I get a wall of text which STILL doesn't correspond to the old syntax.
Would it have really killed Microsoft to make "dir" function like "dir"? Maybe later on when I'm comfortable and familiar with the powershell I might want call get-childitem for something. But it is FAR more important to me during transition that the thing is familiar and all the various .bat / .cmd scripts that I have actually survive the transition.
I should add that the command "ls" also aliases to "get-childitem". So Microsoft are equal-opportunity confounders.
Yes, what you said about dir etc being aliases in PS and not the "real" commands.
Presently you can run .bat file in powershell just fine because powershell spawns a cmd.exe to run that bat file in the same way that opening a .txt file opens notepad.exe.
Oddly enough though, as you pointed out, running single cmd.exe commands doesn't work under powershell in many cases.
Most of the non-text characters, @, $, | and so on, have different meanings in cmd and in powershell.
From the PS prompt "@echo Hey!" fails, but put "@echo Hey!" in a .bat file and it works because PS launches cmd.exe to run it.
However, if you really want to do things from the command line and you're in a PS prompt, you can type cmd.exe and then dir /? or anything works just fine in that shell. Notice that the prompt changes when you do that.
Re: I still don't want it by tangent · 2016-11-18 07:15 · Score: 2

I mostly agree with you, but to me, the major problem with PowerShell is that it's basically a REPL for a C#-like programming language. If I wanted to write C#, I'd launch Visual Studio.
Take the GetChildItem and error message reportage you brought up. The fact that "dir" is implemented in terms of GetChildItem and it's easy to discover that accidentally is a *good thing*, the same sort of thing that so many of us geeks used to praise Smalltalk for. The real downside here is that PowerShell errors are basically stack traces, and successful returns are full-on .NET objects, which turns shell use into a kind of software development activity.
All of that would be fine if what I was trying to do is write durable software. The thing about Unix-style interactive shell use, though, is that it's ephemeral. I'm not after a durable, clean, long-lived solution. I just need a command I can type in a second or so, and as soon as that command has successfully executed, I can forget it.
I think PowerShell is great *technology* but a bad user experience.
The Unix community said, "Look, the shell is a great programming environment, you can whip ad hoc things up quickly and easily," so Microsoft said, "Hey, we know how to build programming tools. We've got this great .NET thing sitting right here...let's make a shell out of that!" The problem is that C# was designed to be written down into *.cs files, saved into a version control system, and compiled to executables. It is not particularly well-suited to interactive, one-off, ad hoc shell commands.
Re:I still don't want it by Lord+Crc · 2016-11-18 07:36 · Score: 1

You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.
Almost all my batch files, and most of my interactive cmd sessions involve "for" in various ways.
I just tried the following basic "for" statement in PowerShell:
for /d %a in (*.*) do ehco "%a"
I got this message back:
At line:1 char:4 + for /d %a in (*.*) do ehco "%a" + ~ Missing opening '(' after keyword 'for'. + CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : MissingOpenParenthesisAfterKeyword
So for me at least, it seems highly unlikely that my batch files will work with PowerShell.
Re:I still don't want it by Yunzil · 2016-11-18 08:18 · Score: 1

Powershell is like some esoteric, incompatible, overly complex thing that claims to do anything via cmdlets, scripts, functions etc. but ends up just complicating everything including the simple stuff.
So it's just like a Linux shell then?

The usual Microsoft confusion-fuckup by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 03:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

On my current Windows 10, there's no less than 4 different PowerShell version that I can invoke, and presumedly they work different, and a script may or may not work depending on what PowerShell you invoke. Is this how it's supposed to work?

Use TCC LE instead by meadwizard · 2016-11-18 03:26 · Score: 1

Don't bother using command.com, download TCC LE from JP Soft. Its free. Works like cmd but adds lots of great extra features.

That's one way to increase adoption :-) by ErichTheRed · 2016-11-18 03:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

As a long-time Windows admin/systems guy, I think it's definitely time to do this. The batch language is very easy to use for procedural scripts, but in the world of things like desired state configuration, API-driven everything, etc. it makes sense to have a scripting language that basically makes the same calls a compiled program would.

I think the two major drawbacks that are presenting a learning curve are the syntax and the "scripting Legos" aspect. Syntax is...interesting. I have tons of cross platform experience so I have good understanding of lots of command languages. PowerShell's syntax is like DCL (the OpenVMS script language,) Bash and Perl got together and had a 3-parent baby. It's extremely verbose a la DCL, yet extremely symbolic like Perl, and has Bash-like constructs in there as well. Once you get used to it it makes sense, but there's definitely some learning before you're proficient enough to write full redistributable tools in it. The other thing that puts a lot of people off, but that's actually great about it, is that commands don't output text and you have to think things like object types. Bash, batch files or VBScripts have to include tons of logic to parse output, read/write INI files or XML data, etc. That gets reduced to a single statement -- want a CSV of the output? Export-Csv replaces tens of lines of function code to open a file, construct the strings and write them out. It's awesome but very different from the craft-your-own days....just like writing modern software, it's just gluing someone else's code Legos to each other and interfacing with APIs. It's hard to tell what you should be writing and what is already written for you and you're just assembling if you're used to building it all yourself and manipulating stuff with sed/awk/grep and friends.

That said, it's definitely time for Windows admins to get on board with PowerShell. Admins that survive the next transition are going to be managing thousands of servers or microservice instances at some IT provider. You can't manage systems at that scale by manually connecting to them and tweaking things. It's the same thing with Microsoft's Azure service -- it's been developer focused from Day 1, and admins are just now getting documentation that's even somewhat tailored to their experience. I know DevOps is the cool new buzzword, and every admin should have some basic coding skills under their belts, but it's hard to take someone who's been taking care of systems and telling them to treat them like software deployments. This is going to be the next big leap for systems guys now that software defined everything is pretty mainstream.

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-) by MightyMartian · 2016-11-18 05:41 · Score: 1

Powershell is a shitty scripting language, but it's the only one that puts all the admin capabilities I need under one roof, so I use it. But I loath it intensely, and wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-) by Nethead · 2016-11-18 13:01 · Score: 1

.. wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.
Bruce Payette is a founding member of the PowerShell team at Microsoft. He is a co-designer of the PowerShell language and the principal author of the language implementation. Prior to joining Microsoft, he worked at Softway Systems and MKS, building UNIX tools for Windows.
I highly suggest his book: https://www.manning.com/books/...

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

Re:Windows 10 what a joke by unixisc · 2016-11-18 03:45 · Score: 1

Ok, then what are you doing here in this thread?

Hit me, go on, I dare you by fyngyrz · 2016-11-18 03:51 · Score: 1

No, bashing Windows has long been a staple theme in here.

Windowing Bash is where the real challenge is, though. I'm just the type of person willing to shell out for that. It'll make history, too.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

So much for compatibility by Dwedit · 2016-11-18 04:02 · Score: 2

So much for compatibility.
In powershell, you can't type in "cd\directory".
Not to mention that any shortcut to "CMD /C" or "CMD /K" will break overnight.

Re:So much for compatibility by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-18 04:12 · Score: 1

On the bright side, PowerShell has alias for most commonly used Linux shell commands. I'm always typing in ls instead of dir for a directory listing.
Re:So much for compatibility by Dwedit · 2016-11-18 06:02 · Score: 1

You get linux-like commands with Cygwin or Msys, so ls will still work from the command line.
Unfortunately, creating any cygwin process adds over 1/3s of startup time, so commands called by scripts like ./configure that should be instantaneous are slow instead.
Re:So much for compatibility by Poohsticks · 2016-11-18 10:02 · Score: 1

Here's your powershell error for that command (FYI - there is no option for "-lasrht" on the ls command: [PS] C:\temp>ls -lasrht ls : A parameter cannot be found that matches parameter name 'lasrht'. At line:1 char:11 + ls -lasrht + CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (:) [Get-ChildItem], ParameterBindingException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : NamedParameterNotFound,Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.GetChildItemCommand

--
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been wide

Re:What would Trump do? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-11-18 04:09 · Score: 1

Trump reportedly doesn't use computers. He will probably have his maid print out any classified emails he needs to read.

Re:Windows 10 what a joke by LVSlushdat · 2016-11-18 04:29 · Score: 1

Probably the same thing I'm doing here.. Laughing my ass off at the shitstorm that is Windows 10.. Like the AC, I used/supported Windows from Win311 to Win7, but when I retired in 2010, I decided I was done with MS.. All of my personal systems had been dualboot Linux/Windows, and I did spend a lot of time in Windows, but I decided to cold-turkey when I retired.. One day I decided to end it once and for all.. I deleted the Win7 partition, and haven't looked back since... Now I just sit back with popcorn and watch MS abuse those who still use their products.. Great entertainment, let me tell you...

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)

Be a man and make an alias by tepples · 2016-11-18 04:44 · Score: 1

You could try making an alias that gets detailed help. Call it man.

Re:Be a man and make an alias by ColdWetDog · 2016-11-18 05:33 · Score: 4, Funny

You could try making an alias that gets detailed help. Call it man.
Are you kidding? Call it MAN? Do that and you're gonna have a herd of SJWs down your neck in a flash.
Besides, MAN does not ask for help. Where do you get these ideas anyway?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

"Tcl" is taken by tepples · 2016-11-18 04:45 · Score: 1

And does it have a toolkit (TK) for making graphical interfaces to your scripts? Then it'd be TCC LE/Tk.

Batch Files by bigal123 · 2016-11-18 04:45 · Score: 1

What about all the different batch files people have for simple tasks that have been brought up from one system to another over the years.

Embrace, extend, extinguish by gmiller123456 · 2016-11-18 05:12 · Score: 1

I can only assume this is Microsoft's final attempt at killing off the command line. So much for hoping one day they'd actually provide a usable one.

If they really wanted to provide an enhanced, programmable shell, then provding a good, lightweight programmer's editor would be the first step. As it stands, Notepad doesn't even recognize Unix style line endings.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish by gmiller123456 · 2016-11-21 05:14 · Score: 1

Try Notepad++. https://notepad-plus-plus.org/ It's a good, free, lightweight programmer's editor, in the style of Notepad.
Yep. I use notepad++ on pretty much every machine I work on, usually as a general text editor. And Sublime for actual programming.
The difference is having on installed by default, like Powershell is. Sure I can install python, perl, or whatever. But there's a big difference in having something that's the same for everyone performing a similar task.

Microsoft needs better managers. by Futurepower(R) · 2016-11-18 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

"... I hate the syntax of PowerShell."

Agreed. PowerShell is the Zune of syntaxes.

Microsoft needs better managers. Former Microsoft CEO Monkey Boy, was the least respected CEO of a big company. Ballmer was rated the worst CEO in the United States: Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today." Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

This story doesn't even mention the Zune: Microsoft's 10 biggest failures.

Re:Microsoft needs better managers. by MountainLogic · 2016-11-18 05:32 · Score: 1

Have to disagree with, "destroying ... jobs." Microsoft's dismal quality has created a whole industry of IT folks to keep microsoft's cruft even halfway working. Now that's a jobs program.
Re:Microsoft needs better managers. by MikeTheGreat · 2016-11-18 07:36 · Score: 1

I know that it's a tradition here on /. to never read TFA, but Zune is actually #2 on that list.

This is what I hate about Microsoft by JustNiz · 2016-11-18 05:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

"you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app"

Hey Microsoft, please remind me: who owns my PC?

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-18 06:01 · Score: 1

They do. That is part of the EULA and something you have to agree to if you intend to run Windows.
Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft by Wolfrider · 2016-11-18 06:35 · Score: 1

...If you REALLY want to own your PC, you don't run Windows. But take a look at jpsoft.com as mentioned above, they have a free CMD replacement called tcc/le.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft by JustNiz · 2016-11-18 07:18 · Score: 1

Agreed. I only have Windows installed at all for gaming reasons. I wish games developers would take Linux more seriously then I could blow Windows away entirely.

It's Hammer time... by HBI · 2016-11-18 05:23 · Score: 2

because Hammer don't use nails.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Super-popular? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-11-18 05:31 · Score: 1

it replaces the super-popular Command Prompt

Super-popular? That's pushing it.

Most people pay tax, but that doesn't make it super-popular.

so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Everything said before this indicates they've completely replaced it. I'd say that's a fairly significant step, I guess.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

edis by edis · 2016-11-18 05:56 · Score: 1

I bet it is still configurable, like it was last time I was digging how to switch default shell in Win10. It must only be that PowerShell became default that is shown for user in interactive dialogs, and only that fact of default change is bit surprising, as preferences are up to user to decide. If we are talking default in newly deployed system - it's OK, if any update would trigger default - that would mean problem in MS thinking.

--
Servant of karma

Then what's the point? by tepples · 2016-11-18 06:37 · Score: 1

The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".

So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?

Re:Then what's the point? by sexconker · 2016-11-18 07:57 · Score: 1

Create your own cert and sign it, then the user can set the powershell policy to prompt for untrusted certs.
The prompt lets them choose whether or not to run shit each time. They also have the option to accept a particular cert permanently via that same prompt.
Re:Then what's the point? by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-11-18 08:29 · Score: 1

The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".
So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?
First of all, given the choice between CMD.EXE which can only do file type activities and PowerShell which can perform those plus a massive number of other things, worrying about (default) script policy isn't worthwhile. With CMD.EXE you can do so much less that you might as well be running with a policy of "there are no scripts".

Secondly, most people - by far - will never have need to run a PowerShell script. If they do, they're the sort of people who can read "step 1: set your execution policy". Joe Average has no business running PowerShell scripts that they don't know what they are and how they work. Which is why a default policy preventing unsigned scripts from running is a good idea.

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
Re:Then what's the point? by tepples · 2016-11-18 12:43 · Score: 1

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.
Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?
Re:Then what's the point? by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-11-18 17:28 · Score: 1

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.
Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?
Theory: because they're different products that do different things and run different kinds of scripts?

--
"Oh no... he found the .sig setting."

Screws up putty by Paul+Carver · 2016-11-18 06:45 · Score: 1

I just opened power shell and typed the number one most common thing I type at the cmd prompt: "putty @session" and it opened the putty configuration window rather than launching an ssh connection to the designated server. That's a non-starter for me.

Oops! by Futurepower(R) · 2016-11-18 08:29 · Score: 1

MikeTheGreat,

Greetings from a lesser Mike.

My response: Oops! Didn't see it.

Thanks.

Re:Oops! by MikeTheGreat · 2016-11-18 10:02 · Score: 1

LOL - no worries. Given the 'no reading the TFA' I did think it was funny.
Side-note: One personal metric for how mature a web site is is whether or not the username "MikeTheGreat" is taken. I was MikeTheGreat on BitBucket but had to fall back to MikeTheTall on GitHub :)

Boo by DriveDog · 2016-11-18 08:36 · Score: 1

Only thing I want ordinary command line replaced with is BASH. If I have to do something that's difficult or messy with MS batch stuff, I just use JScript.

Article is wrong by clovis · 2016-11-18 08:44 · Score: 1

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

I just upgraded my Insider preview to 14971,

As a result, PowerShell officially replaces the Command Prompt in the Win + X menu, so when you right-click the Start menu, you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app.

This is true.

Additionally, in File Explorer's File menu and in the context menu that appears when pressing Shift + right-click in any folder, the old Command Prompt will no longer be available.

This is false.

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Wrong again. Typing "cmd" into the run dialog launches "C:\windows\system32\cmd.exe"

"For those who prefer to use Command Prompt" by trawg · 2016-11-18 09:12 · Score: 1

... Yeh I "prefer" to use it, largely because I've got like 20 years of accumulated batch files and command line applications, as well as the knowledge of how to use them expertly to be productive.

And I bet I'm lightweight compared to thousands of people who actually do real shit at large scale on Windows!

I think PowerShell is pretty cool (I've been writing scripts to consume an API this week actually and have been impressed with how easy it is to bang out stuff quickly), but removing the option for it in Windows 10 is just another reason for me to avoid upgrading for even longer.

They're making it more tempting to look at Macs than ever for me. And I'm one of the few nerds that actually likes using Windows!

"If it ain't broke, break it" by Tablizer · 2016-11-18 15:14 · Score: 1

-MS

--
Table-ized A.I.

You Can Restore the Command Prompt by Nitrobob · 2016-11-19 05:56 · Score: 1

The Windows blog has the official announcement about this change and you can restore the command prompt if you so desire. Here is what they posted: PowerShell in the Shell: In an effort to bring the best command line experiences to the forefront for all power users, PowerShell is now the defacto command shell from File Explorer. It replaces Command Prompt (aka, “cmd.exe”) in the WIN + X menu, in File Explorer’s File menu, and in the context menu that appears when you shift-right-click the whitespace in File Explorer. Typing “cmd” (or “powershell”) in File Explorer’s address bar will remain a quick way to launch the command shell at that location. For those who prefer to use Command Prompt, you can opt out of the WIN + X change by opening Settings > Personalization > Taskbar, and turning “Replace Command Prompt with Windows PowerShell in the menu when I right-click the Start button or press Windows key+X” to “Off”. The full announcement is available at https://blogs.windows.com/wind.... Fact-checking is a wonderful thing. :>)

Wait!!! by WindowsStar · 2016-11-19 15:31 · Score: 1

Are the idiots that made this change also going to make it so it just works! So you don't have to activate it, force it work without all the security locks! Are they going to add all the parts you need without having to go find them all over the internet and install them. MS should make every part of PowerShell part of the load. I hate having to go and get the Exchange parts when I need to do something on a machine that is don't normally work on. Until MS can get their act together with PowerShell they will have to do stuff like this and ram it down our throats instead of fixing it and making it work correctly. Pisses me off.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Replaces Command Prompt with PowerShell in Latest Windows 10 Build (softpedia.com)

173 of 280 comments (clear)