To run scripts with the ease that bash runs scripts, you have to actively activate this ability, otherwise Windows wants only signed scripts. So now, Powershell still isn't as natively supported as bash is in *nix.
Ah, so now you want to complain because Windows has a level of security that is above and beyond that of *nix. I see the straws you're grasping at, do you?
My brother is responsible to hire Windows admin at his university. Believe or not, he actually post looking for Unix admins! Based on previous experience, he says that if a guy can admin Unix, he will be better administering Windows then a Windows only admin.
Considering the level of Windows "admins" I've encountered over my years, I'd say your brother may be on to something:P
working with an object-oriented terminal is immensely more preferable to having to wrangle text.
You would need to have the objects first. On windows you have objects representing registry keys, services, users, installed packages, processes, scheduled tasks, shares, office documents, etc. etc. - Powershell gets the power from that. And in order to be similarly powerful on Linux, it would need to have bindings for all that on Linux. Somehow I doubt that.
I don't disagree with this. However, everything has to start somewhere. The release on github is admittedly an alpha, so this is that start. I'm excited to see where it goes.
Good because if it's truly open source, decent coders and groups can fork it, fix all the poorly designed and coded bugs...I mean 'features' it has.
Bad because...Microsoft, stay the hell away from Linux. MS makes everything it touches worse, introduced more bugs and security holes.
The vast majority of bugs and security holes that are exploited on Windows machines there because flash and/or java are installed on most of them. Hate M$ all you want, but put the blame where it belongs.
How about letting actual Slashdot commentErs make the comments instead of building a ridiculous strawman? +4 Insightful, really?
And by "actual slashdot commentErs" you mean linux zealots? The comment was on target and recognized as such.
It seems that having an open mind and a balanced view is a crime in the eyes of many on slashdot. "Either you're with me or against me" makes for entertaining movies, but dysfunctional IT/Development teams.
There's no easy way to get Powershell scripts to run in the task scheduler. At the end of my little quest, more than a few recommendations basically amounted to run it as "powershell.exe -File script.ps". Powershell still isn't really integrated into Windows, for goodness sake.
Laziness in updating the task scheduler doesn't mean it's not "really integrated into Windows" as you put it. Group policies for login scripts take powershell scripts directly. Since Windows 7/2008, powershell has been packed into the OS. It's central to the management of the Core and Nano installs of Windows Server, and each major release of windows since has added more cmdlets and functionality. Cherry picking a single anomaly to justify your argument is so...so...slashdot
Hmm... how were those servers managed before powershell?
Hint: I often encounter Exchange and SQL servers admins that don't even know about powershell, they are still using cmd.exe.
Admins: "Powershell? What is it? I would have to install it..."
Me: "see that rotated M icon on you taskbar, that's powershell..."
Admins: "Thanks! how does it work?"
Those aren't Admins. Those are Microsoft Support Phone liaisons with elevated permissions. Thier job title may contain "Admin", but common sense screams otherwise.
This is Microsoft we're talking about here. Obviously, they mean to do harm with this action. What is it? They have a long track record of actions that *seem* great but turn out to have a harmful outcome (harmful to us, beneficial to themselves) years later. Does the hivemind see what this angle is? I'm not seeing it, but you KNOW it's there. This is a company that does NOT do altruism. Anything smacking of doing good for outsiders with no shareholder return would get vetoed immediately by the MBAs in management.
The new management means this is a very different Microsoft then the ones we've seen over the past decades. Yes, Decades. Most (if not all) of the anti-trust stuff is over 15 years old now. And no company that large EVER does altruism, Microsoft is not the anomaly you're trying to paint it as.
The most obvious purpose of this move is that which is stated on Jeff Snover's blogpost, to enable the powershell fluent to be able to use that knowledge on more machines.
Powershell has been primarily a language of system administration, although it IS capable of much more. Once you're used to it, you start to see where else powershell can be used, among those, Azure. "I can admin windows, linux, mac and my azure VMs with a single language" can be a powerful selling point. Doesn't mean bash is going anywhere, it simply opens up more options for those who want to use it. Which is opposite of the "closing down other options" mentality that we saw from Microsoft in the past.
Powershell has a very steep learning curve and IMHO lacks the end-user history of traditional unix shells....
The fact that it's so hard to do simple things makes it very difficult to add to your knowledge without reading a few books or taking some course on the subject, then using it daily in Windows admin work.
I always wish I knew more about using it, but... unless you're deep in this stuff, it's better to skim the capabilities and let the Windows admins figure out the details.
What you need is a user community. When I started out in powershell, I was pretty lost myself. I've progressed quite a distance because I found a community willing to help me understand when I was fighting the derpsauce. Find one that fits you, wether it's a mailing list, slack channel, or the like, and you'll find your progression accelerated.
Powershell is horrible. It has some great stuff, don't get me wrong - the ease of using any.Net component from a script is interesting. But the haphazard nature of it means spending more time debugging and understanding obscure things about why it does things the way it does. I was using it for Azure scripting, but I've been burned so many times by it (and how crappy the Azure cmdlets are) that I've just gone to C# and.Net and the Azure REST APIs so I don't have to bend myself into contortions to do simple things and get deterministic results. Plus I can take advantage of things like generics, the TPL and collections in general which make my life a lot easier and more productive.
I can see using.Net core and C# on Mac or Linux. Powershell - no way.
This is a problem with any language, you can have bad implementation anywhere. Even within Microsoft you can see different teams have different levels of buy-in with powershell. The core cmdlets have a level of polish that isn't frequently seen elsewhere, but many of the other teams have made a decent effort to support powershell with modules that cover a large number of use cases.
agreed. Coming from Solaris to Windows, I find it horrid, just horrid. Some days, I would give my server for a workable "grep".
pipe to: where {$_.property -match "regex"}
Powershell has had a workable grep for a long time, but it's usually learning how objects work that typically obstruct new users.
Ugh, PS is horrendous - especially trying to learn the f***ed up way it works.
But on Windoze hosts you have nothing else command line wise to manage AD and Exchange (mostly what I punish my self with).
It's object oriented. If you don't have a even a basic understanding of how objects work, of course it's going to be confusing. Once you break past that wall however, you find a well documented and sane terminal. Sadly many think "different" = "bad".
Every once in a while I get told to run something under cmd.exe or PowerShell, and am reminded how incredibly limited these apps are when compared with any *nix *sh terminal app. Why does anyone think Linux users would take PowerShell over bash?
For many, working with an object-oriented terminal is immensely more preferable to having to wrangle text.
So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?
How about those who actually want the help, and who display that want by working hard in reaction to receiving it, get the help? You can't help someone who doesn't want it, and if education is given a low priority by the child's parents, the child tends to mirror this.
Obviously something schools aren't teaching well is the scientific method and intellectual skepticism. "They are because I say they are" is not an argument.
That depends entirely upon the size and threat of the individual making the statement compared to yourself. This is a lesson often learned in school, even if not taught by the faculty.
Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free.
ok....
I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.
Maybe they're just presenting the web site in a different way than intended by the maker. In how far is one obliged to follow the HTML standard when displaying a page? To run all the javascript? Get all third-party bits and pieces (e.g. advertisements)? Many Firefox add-ons change how a page looks like, by adding things, or blocking things. AdBlockPlus is a thorn in the eye of many advertisers, yet it seems they can't do much against it.
Call my argumentation ridiculous - I know it is. But it is that kind of interpretation is what opens up mazes in the law, and if you have your argumentation right, you may very well be within your legal rights.
Not ridiculous at all. If they had to leave out some *features* to get youtube to display correctly on their device in absence of an API, then oh well. "We have no objection to creating an app that will achieve Google's requests, but we simply don't know how. Despite out best attempts at negotiating, Google has thusfar been unwilling to share the details required to achieve their requests. We've simply created a patchwork browser that enables Youtube viewing in the interim."
The only thing I see going against them is the downloading function. That does require extra effort, and was perhaps included as a middle finger against Google...
If you can afford to replace the device being covered, than they don't make sense.
This isn't as simple an equation as you'd like to make it. You need to look at more then just cost of replacement. Look at your use (high-risk? low-risk?) and the terms of their plan (covers all, covers most, covers only slight warping during a full moon?). For instance, there was an electronics retailer that would offer extended service plans on headphones, even the $9.99 variety, for roughly $3.00. The store's policy allowed for items covered by warranty to be simply replaced if they were under a certain cost, say $40. If you treated your headphones immaculately, then the extended warranty is a waste like you say. But if you use them while jogging and destroy headphones monthly (though impact, sweat, etc) then the $3.00 warranty saves ten dollars (after the first instance) each month it's in effect.
It could be made into a flowchart along the lines of:
1: "Am I likely to need one or more replacements within the warrenty period. If yes:
2: Why.
3: Then compare the reasons to the terms of the extended warranty, and the cost of the extended warranty to the number of replacements you're likely to need. If it comes out "close", then you're probably safe in ignoring the extended warranty. If the cost of replacement is a multiple of the extended warranty, then it's a good investment.
4: Also, make sure the warranty isn't a duplication of the manufacturer's warranty, caught a few sales people on that one.
My rule of thumb is that the harder the sales pitch is the more likely it's not a good idea to buy.
I used to hold the same view before I put a couple years in at an electronic retail store. Corporate wanted us to push extended warranties, but often we simply offered them when they showed up on the screen, even though selling them would boost our paycheck.
There were just a few products in the store that I actually pushed the warranty on, simply because I knew the store policy would actually be to replace on the spot, or because I knew the product was prone to failure from past returns. In the second instance, the product were uncommon, very difficult to come by, so there weren't any alternatives, even at competitors.
For these products, I viewed the extended warranty as a good plan, so I did made a harder pitch then I normally would, because I knew the chances were high that the customer would end up using the plan, and then coming back to buy something else because they'd realize I was looking out for them. It was really less about the simple sale, and more about not having to deal with angry/upset customers down the line.
The unfortunate part is that for every salesperson out there who is actually trying to look out for the customer (even though it's motivated by self-interest), there's at least ten sales people who either don't know, or do know and don't care. If you find that one that knows what the hell he's talking about and tells it like it is, get his card and name, and stick to him til he moves on to another job (which he will).
Slashdot Mirror
To run scripts with the ease that bash runs scripts, you have to actively activate this ability, otherwise Windows wants only signed scripts. So now, Powershell still isn't as natively supported as bash is in *nix.
Ah, so now you want to complain because Windows has a level of security that is above and beyond that of *nix. I see the straws you're grasping at, do you?
My brother is responsible to hire Windows admin at his university. Believe or not, he actually post looking for Unix admins! Based on previous experience, he says that if a guy can admin Unix, he will be better administering Windows then a Windows only admin.
Considering the level of Windows "admins" I've encountered over my years, I'd say your brother may be on to something :P
You would need to have the objects first. On windows you have objects representing registry keys, services, users, installed packages, processes, scheduled tasks, shares, office documents, etc. etc. - Powershell gets the power from that. And in order to be similarly powerful on Linux, it would need to have bindings for all that on Linux. Somehow I doubt that.
I don't disagree with this. However, everything has to start somewhere. The release on github is admittedly an alpha, so this is that start. I'm excited to see where it goes.
Good because if it's truly open source, decent coders and groups can fork it, fix all the poorly designed and coded bugs...I mean 'features' it has.
Bad because...Microsoft, stay the hell away from Linux. MS makes everything it touches worse, introduced more bugs and security holes.
The vast majority of bugs and security holes that are exploited on Windows machines there because flash and/or java are installed on most of them. Hate M$ all you want, but put the blame where it belongs.
How about letting actual Slashdot commentErs make the comments instead of building a ridiculous strawman? +4 Insightful, really?
And by "actual slashdot commentErs" you mean linux zealots? The comment was on target and recognized as such.
It seems that having an open mind and a balanced view is a crime in the eyes of many on slashdot. "Either you're with me or against me" makes for entertaining movies, but dysfunctional IT/Development teams.
There's no easy way to get Powershell scripts to run in the task scheduler. At the end of my little quest, more than a few recommendations basically amounted to run it as "powershell.exe -File script.ps". Powershell still isn't really integrated into Windows, for goodness sake.
Laziness in updating the task scheduler doesn't mean it's not "really integrated into Windows" as you put it. Group policies for login scripts take powershell scripts directly. Since Windows 7/2008, powershell has been packed into the OS. It's central to the management of the Core and Nano installs of Windows Server, and each major release of windows since has added more cmdlets and functionality. Cherry picking a single anomaly to justify your argument is so...so...slashdot
Hmm... how were those servers managed before powershell?
Hint: I often encounter Exchange and SQL servers admins that don't even know about powershell, they are still using cmd.exe.
Admins: "Powershell? What is it? I would have to install it..."
Me: "see that rotated M icon on you taskbar, that's powershell..."
Admins: "Thanks! how does it work?"
Those aren't Admins. Those are Microsoft Support Phone liaisons with elevated permissions. Thier job title may contain "Admin", but common sense screams otherwise.
This is Microsoft we're talking about here. Obviously, they mean to do harm with this action. What is it? They have a long track record of actions that *seem* great but turn out to have a harmful outcome (harmful to us, beneficial to themselves) years later. Does the hivemind see what this angle is? I'm not seeing it, but you KNOW it's there. This is a company that does NOT do altruism. Anything smacking of doing good for outsiders with no shareholder return would get vetoed immediately by the MBAs in management.
The new management means this is a very different Microsoft then the ones we've seen over the past decades. Yes, Decades. Most (if not all) of the anti-trust stuff is over 15 years old now. And no company that large EVER does altruism, Microsoft is not the anomaly you're trying to paint it as.
The most obvious purpose of this move is that which is stated on Jeff Snover's blogpost, to enable the powershell fluent to be able to use that knowledge on more machines.
Powershell has been primarily a language of system administration, although it IS capable of much more. Once you're used to it, you start to see where else powershell can be used, among those, Azure. "I can admin windows, linux, mac and my azure VMs with a single language" can be a powerful selling point. Doesn't mean bash is going anywhere, it simply opens up more options for those who want to use it. Which is opposite of the "closing down other options" mentality that we saw from Microsoft in the past.
Powershell has a very steep learning curve and IMHO lacks the end-user history of traditional unix shells. ...
The fact that it's so hard to do simple things makes it very difficult to add to your knowledge without reading a few books or taking some course on the subject, then using it daily in Windows admin work.
I always wish I knew more about using it, but... unless you're deep in this stuff, it's better to skim the capabilities and let the Windows admins figure out the details.
What you need is a user community. When I started out in powershell, I was pretty lost myself. I've progressed quite a distance because I found a community willing to help me understand when I was fighting the derpsauce. Find one that fits you, wether it's a mailing list, slack channel, or the like, and you'll find your progression accelerated.
Powershell is horrible. It has some great stuff, don't get me wrong - the ease of using any .Net component from a script is interesting. But the haphazard nature of it means spending more time debugging and understanding obscure things about why it does things the way it does. I was using it for Azure scripting, but I've been burned so many times by it (and how crappy the Azure cmdlets are) that I've just gone to C# and .Net and the Azure REST APIs so I don't have to bend myself into contortions to do simple things and get deterministic results. Plus I can take advantage of things like generics, the TPL and collections in general which make my life a lot easier and more productive.
I can see using .Net core and C# on Mac or Linux. Powershell - no way.
This is a problem with any language, you can have bad implementation anywhere. Even within Microsoft you can see different teams have different levels of buy-in with powershell. The core cmdlets have a level of polish that isn't frequently seen elsewhere, but many of the other teams have made a decent effort to support powershell with modules that cover a large number of use cases.
agreed. Coming from Solaris to Windows, I find it horrid, just horrid. Some days, I would give my server for a workable "grep".
pipe to: where {$_.property -match "regex"} Powershell has had a workable grep for a long time, but it's usually learning how objects work that typically obstruct new users.
Ugh, PS is horrendous - especially trying to learn the f***ed up way it works.
But on Windoze hosts you have nothing else command line wise to manage AD and Exchange (mostly what I punish my self with).
It's object oriented. If you don't have a even a basic understanding of how objects work, of course it's going to be confusing. Once you break past that wall however, you find a well documented and sane terminal. Sadly many think "different" = "bad".
Every once in a while I get told to run something under cmd.exe or PowerShell, and am reminded how incredibly limited these apps are when compared with any *nix *sh terminal app. Why does anyone think Linux users would take PowerShell over bash?
For many, working with an object-oriented terminal is immensely more preferable to having to wrangle text.
A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.
Good luck being Amish.
In other news, the GM employees responsible for setting the length of the list will be attending sexual harrassment training.
So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?
How about those who actually want the help, and who display that want by working hard in reaction to receiving it, get the help? You can't help someone who doesn't want it, and if education is given a low priority by the child's parents, the child tends to mirror this.
Obviously something schools aren't teaching well is the scientific method and intellectual skepticism. "They are because I say they are" is not an argument.
That depends entirely upon the size and threat of the individual making the statement compared to yourself. This is a lesson often learned in school, even if not taught by the faculty.
EA made Sim City in a *cave*! With a *box of scraps*!
Actually, that WOULD explain the quality of quite a few of their games...
Quality be damned hard to sell to a market that's been dumbed down from Mozart to Miley. FTFY
Great, because you connected the two, I'm now wondering what twerking to Mozart would look like...
The current version of MacOS has fewer viruses because it is built on a solid foundation that isn't undermined by really stupid ideas about usability.
Which would explain why people use a PC to get actual work done.
I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier. Or perhaps that it wasn't noticed earlier.
Apparently you've never been mining in high sec...
Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free.
ok....
I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.
Oh please...
Maybe they're just presenting the web site in a different way than intended by the maker. In how far is one obliged to follow the HTML standard when displaying a page? To run all the javascript? Get all third-party bits and pieces (e.g. advertisements)? Many Firefox add-ons change how a page looks like, by adding things, or blocking things. AdBlockPlus is a thorn in the eye of many advertisers, yet it seems they can't do much against it.
Call my argumentation ridiculous - I know it is. But it is that kind of interpretation is what opens up mazes in the law, and if you have your argumentation right, you may very well be within your legal rights.
Not ridiculous at all. If they had to leave out some *features* to get youtube to display correctly on their device in absence of an API, then oh well. "We have no objection to creating an app that will achieve Google's requests, but we simply don't know how. Despite out best attempts at negotiating, Google has thusfar been unwilling to share the details required to achieve their requests. We've simply created a patchwork browser that enables Youtube viewing in the interim."
The only thing I see going against them is the downloading function. That does require extra effort, and was perhaps included as a middle finger against Google...
If you can afford to replace the device being covered, than they don't make sense.
This isn't as simple an equation as you'd like to make it. You need to look at more then just cost of replacement. Look at your use (high-risk? low-risk?) and the terms of their plan (covers all, covers most, covers only slight warping during a full moon?). For instance, there was an electronics retailer that would offer extended service plans on headphones, even the $9.99 variety, for roughly $3.00. The store's policy allowed for items covered by warranty to be simply replaced if they were under a certain cost, say $40. If you treated your headphones immaculately, then the extended warranty is a waste like you say. But if you use them while jogging and destroy headphones monthly (though impact, sweat, etc) then the $3.00 warranty saves ten dollars (after the first instance) each month it's in effect.
It could be made into a flowchart along the lines of:
1: "Am I likely to need one or more replacements within the warrenty period. If yes:
2: Why.
3: Then compare the reasons to the terms of the extended warranty, and the cost of the extended warranty to the number of replacements you're likely to need. If it comes out "close", then you're probably safe in ignoring the extended warranty. If the cost of replacement is a multiple of the extended warranty, then it's a good investment.
4: Also, make sure the warranty isn't a duplication of the manufacturer's warranty, caught a few sales people on that one.
My rule of thumb is that the harder the sales pitch is the more likely it's not a good idea to buy.
I used to hold the same view before I put a couple years in at an electronic retail store. Corporate wanted us to push extended warranties, but often we simply offered them when they showed up on the screen, even though selling them would boost our paycheck.
There were just a few products in the store that I actually pushed the warranty on, simply because I knew the store policy would actually be to replace on the spot, or because I knew the product was prone to failure from past returns. In the second instance, the product were uncommon, very difficult to come by, so there weren't any alternatives, even at competitors.
For these products, I viewed the extended warranty as a good plan, so I did made a harder pitch then I normally would, because I knew the chances were high that the customer would end up using the plan, and then coming back to buy something else because they'd realize I was looking out for them. It was really less about the simple sale, and more about not having to deal with angry/upset customers down the line.
The unfortunate part is that for every salesperson out there who is actually trying to look out for the customer (even though it's motivated by self-interest), there's at least ten sales people who either don't know, or do know and don't care. If you find that one that knows what the hell he's talking about and tells it like it is, get his card and name, and stick to him til he moves on to another job (which he will).