"Best tool for the job" assumes infinite budgets to pay for it. I'd probably be less allergic to Windows if I had unlimited budgets, but I don't, and worse, even if I got a big budget to move a bunch of the stuff I do now over to Windows, in five or six years when Microsoft is clearly pushing for upgrades, I get to spend that all over again.
Our main file server is running Samba. Not because Samba's better than Windows. In a lot of ways, it's a big pain in the ass, and Posix ACL mapping to Windows ACLs is pretty imperfect at the best of times. But I can upgrade to the next version of Samba for the cost of my time, and not have to try to eek out a huge budget to buy a new operating system that will likely require new hardware, and will come waited with a whole bunch of CALs. As I said, I run a very mixed network.
I'm still trying to figure out what good it would do. Powershell, like its antecedents (WMI, Vbscript, etc.) is accessing exposed elements of the Windows API and various APIs for other systems like Active Directory and Exchange. *nix has never had those particular problems, because it's always stuck to a minimalistic approach.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out what advantage a powershell-like shell would do in a *nix system.
Crap, I using *nix variants like Xenix that didn't even have the GNU toolset, and was based on older variants, and I've never had that problem. I've done a LOT of text processing under various *nix variants, and to be honest with you, I've actually dropped Windows compiles of tools like awk, sed and Perl into my servers just to get the level of processing power those tools can provide.
So why do you assume I'm some Linux geek who runs a home network in his basement? I've been in this business for over 20 years, and have set up and administered networks all the way to LANManager-based networks running Lantastic and Windows for Workgroups, as well as Xenix, FreeBSD and Linux systems, not to mention NT 3.51/4/Windows 2000/Server 2003/Server 2008, along with Exchange 95/2003/2007, and currently have a network with eight servers divided between six locations, with AD domains and in particular using site-based GPOs.
You have this bizarre idea about *nix and its users that does not resemble reality at all.
If you're using any OS permissions system just to set up access for one or two users, then you're doing it wrong. I've literally seen guys who have set up server shares where folders and files have permissions for individual users.
I'm in the real world, you fucking prick. I actually run an AD-network with Linux member servers. I administrate a wide-area network made of multiple locations running site-based AD.
Quit your sales pitch. *nix has been running in the real world longer than you've likely been alive. All you've done is demonstrate how fucking stupid, ignorant and idiotic you Redmond shills really are.
This idea that somehow Windows is the only solution, that somehow running *nix makes you some pimple-faced geek sitting in his parents basement is absurd. So fuck you again, you contemptible arrogant product whore.
I'm not saying get rid of powershell, I'm saying put a native variant of a shell scripting language that has been around for longer than Bill Gates has been in the computer industry. That way, there is a proper choice.
It might come in handy, I suppose, in processing XML-based configs, but those still make a pretty small chunk of all the conf files in existence. For any heavy duty processing like that you always have awk or Perl if you want a full-blown language. Heck, I remember writing a ten or fifteen line awk script that processed some weirdo mainframe style inventory list of about 100,000 items into a csv file using awk.
The issue here, I think, is that *nix doesn't really use objects at all for base OS interaction. That's a Windows thing. So maybe Powershell really is a Windows necessity, though, as I said, even in my Windows scripting, I can't really think of any occasions where I need it desperately. At the end of the day, the underlying Windows configuration system still is largely name-value pairs, no matter how much OOP veneer Microsoft chooses to put on top of it.
This fucking twerp is nothing more than a good example of your average head-up-the-ass Windows admin. I've taken one of those Microsoft Windows Server 2008 online courses, and the first fucking slide starts out with "Windows Server 2008 is the best server operating system ever created." Clearly this condescending asshole, who wouldn't know what goes in the real world if it came and kicked him the nuts, has bought the kool-aid.
And before that disgusting little prick comes back, I run a network made of Linux and Windows Server, administer a large AD network, and actually find aspects of Windows, particularly as far as Group Policies goes, very powerful indeed, so I'm not just some guy who built a Linux server to run his home computers and play around with Samba to look kewl.
Oh, and did I mention that this "North Korea" is a condescending prick? I'd like to just reiterate my extreme contempt for him. Probably one of those worthless Redmond lackeys that comes around here to impress us with his knowledge and his capacity for making friends.
Oh, I get it, your just Redmond snob. Even if I buy your penetration numbers (and I'lve always had problems with the 50% claim), that means half of the servers out there, and yes, in the real world (where I fucking work you condescending prick) are running *nix, and that means that most of their automation is being done with sh variants.
I've used Powershell where I have to because the alternative is vb/jscript, so no thank you on that score.
And yet, for all of that, the SH-variants have an enormous body of code behind them. I'm willing to concede there are aspects of Powershell that might be desirable, but it's a fucking nightmare to code in, and for scripting, I don't really want to code anyways. The whole point behind sh and all its children wasn't so that you could have some full blown programming language, but rather that you could automate tasks, and at that, the sh family works remarkably well, and has done so for decades.
I have no problem with choice, but I would love it if a properly integrated bash variant was available on Windows. Not one that requires some awful layer like Cygwin, but one that runs natively without some ghastly compatibility layer.
I just don't understand why Microsoft can't just make a good BASH variant for Windows, so us folks who administrate heterogeneous networks can create a common stock of admin scripts, and a common scripting language to do them in. Microsoft still can't get over the fact that it isn't the only boy in town in the server world, and making proper integration tools, as opposed to trying to force itself on us at every turn, should take precedence.
Yes, I know there's Cygwin, but it's huge and a major pain in the ass and I consider the ugliest of hacks.
And is overkill for about 99% of the scripting I do. If I want a real programming language, there are far better ones out than the PowerShell. It's too much for a command scripting language, and too little for heavy duty work. As usual, Microsoft foists another ginormous tool on admins, instead of taking the more rational minimalist approach. But that's alright. I expect 90% of Windows admins are terrified of the CLI anyways.
It will be a real competitor when it runs a properly compatible version of BASH, as opposed to that abortion PowerShell.
Thanks, but unless there's something truly fantastic about it, I'll continue running everything KVM, and if I want a Windows server it can be a guest. That way I'm not paying vast licensing fees for a bunch of cruft I don't want.
I actually had one of these dingbats come into my office one time. I had a pretty bad headcold and this weird woman poked her head in the door and saw the network set up and started telling me how I was sick because of the radiation, but that she had a friend who made a bracelet that could keep the evil RF waves from hurting me. Fortunately someone came along and escorted the wingbat away.
Slashdot Mirror
Spend a lot of time in the bathroom, do you?
Can you give us an example of where you would need this in a *nix environment. Something specific here.
"Best tool for the job" assumes infinite budgets to pay for it. I'd probably be less allergic to Windows if I had unlimited budgets, but I don't, and worse, even if I got a big budget to move a bunch of the stuff I do now over to Windows, in five or six years when Microsoft is clearly pushing for upgrades, I get to spend that all over again.
Our main file server is running Samba. Not because Samba's better than Windows. In a lot of ways, it's a big pain in the ass, and Posix ACL mapping to Windows ACLs is pretty imperfect at the best of times. But I can upgrade to the next version of Samba for the cost of my time, and not have to try to eek out a huge budget to buy a new operating system that will likely require new hardware, and will come waited with a whole bunch of CALs. As I said, I run a very mixed network.
I'm still trying to figure out what good it would do. Powershell, like its antecedents (WMI, Vbscript, etc.) is accessing exposed elements of the Windows API and various APIs for other systems like Active Directory and Exchange. *nix has never had those particular problems, because it's always stuck to a minimalistic approach.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out what advantage a powershell-like shell would do in a *nix system.
Crap, I using *nix variants like Xenix that didn't even have the GNU toolset, and was based on older variants, and I've never had that problem. I've done a LOT of text processing under various *nix variants, and to be honest with you, I've actually dropped Windows compiles of tools like awk, sed and Perl into my servers just to get the level of processing power those tools can provide.
So why do you assume I'm some Linux geek who runs a home network in his basement? I've been in this business for over 20 years, and have set up and administered networks all the way to LANManager-based networks running Lantastic and Windows for Workgroups, as well as Xenix, FreeBSD and Linux systems, not to mention NT 3.51/4/Windows 2000/Server 2003/Server 2008, along with Exchange 95/2003/2007, and currently have a network with eight servers divided between six locations, with AD domains and in particular using site-based GPOs.
You have this bizarre idea about *nix and its users that does not resemble reality at all.
If you're using any OS permissions system just to set up access for one or two users, then you're doing it wrong. I've literally seen guys who have set up server shares where folders and files have permissions for individual users.
Oh, and we've had POSIX ACLs for how long now?
I'm in the real world, you fucking prick. I actually run an AD-network with Linux member servers. I administrate a wide-area network made of multiple locations running site-based AD.
Quit your sales pitch. *nix has been running in the real world longer than you've likely been alive. All you've done is demonstrate how fucking stupid, ignorant and idiotic you Redmond shills really are.
This idea that somehow Windows is the only solution, that somehow running *nix makes you some pimple-faced geek sitting in his parents basement is absurd. So fuck you again, you contemptible arrogant product whore.
Thanks for that link to an unmaintained build whose latest file is from 2000.
I'm not saying get rid of powershell, I'm saying put a native variant of a shell scripting language that has been around for longer than Bill Gates has been in the computer industry. That way, there is a proper choice.
It might come in handy, I suppose, in processing XML-based configs, but those still make a pretty small chunk of all the conf files in existence. For any heavy duty processing like that you always have awk or Perl if you want a full-blown language. Heck, I remember writing a ten or fifteen line awk script that processed some weirdo mainframe style inventory list of about 100,000 items into a csv file using awk.
The issue here, I think, is that *nix doesn't really use objects at all for base OS interaction. That's a Windows thing. So maybe Powershell really is a Windows necessity, though, as I said, even in my Windows scripting, I can't really think of any occasions where I need it desperately. At the end of the day, the underlying Windows configuration system still is largely name-value pairs, no matter how much OOP veneer Microsoft chooses to put on top of it.
Unix based OSs have been around nearly twice as long. And I love how your invoking that questionable vulnerability metric.
Can you confirm my hunch that you're a Microsoft employee? Even your fellow MS-fans here think you're way over the top.
This fucking twerp is nothing more than a good example of your average head-up-the-ass Windows admin. I've taken one of those Microsoft Windows Server 2008 online courses, and the first fucking slide starts out with "Windows Server 2008 is the best server operating system ever created." Clearly this condescending asshole, who wouldn't know what goes in the real world if it came and kicked him the nuts, has bought the kool-aid.
And before that disgusting little prick comes back, I run a network made of Linux and Windows Server, administer a large AD network, and actually find aspects of Windows, particularly as far as Group Policies goes, very powerful indeed, so I'm not just some guy who built a Linux server to run his home computers and play around with Samba to look kewl.
Oh, and did I mention that this "North Korea" is a condescending prick? I'd like to just reiterate my extreme contempt for him. Probably one of those worthless Redmond lackeys that comes around here to impress us with his knowledge and his capacity for making friends.
Is there some reason that PowerScript is needed on *nix, which has a tool set far beyond anything Microsoft has ever produced.
Oh, I get it, your just Redmond snob. Even if I buy your penetration numbers (and I'lve always had problems with the 50% claim), that means half of the servers out there, and yes, in the real world (where I fucking work you condescending prick) are running *nix, and that means that most of their automation is being done with sh variants.
I've used Powershell where I have to because the alternative is vb/jscript, so no thank you on that score.
And yet, for all of that, the SH-variants have an enormous body of code behind them. I'm willing to concede there are aspects of Powershell that might be desirable, but it's a fucking nightmare to code in, and for scripting, I don't really want to code anyways. The whole point behind sh and all its children wasn't so that you could have some full blown programming language, but rather that you could automate tasks, and at that, the sh family works remarkably well, and has done so for decades.
I have no problem with choice, but I would love it if a properly integrated bash variant was available on Windows. Not one that requires some awful layer like Cygwin, but one that runs natively without some ghastly compatibility layer.
I just don't understand why Microsoft can't just make a good BASH variant for Windows, so us folks who administrate heterogeneous networks can create a common stock of admin scripts, and a common scripting language to do them in. Microsoft still can't get over the fact that it isn't the only boy in town in the server world, and making proper integration tools, as opposed to trying to force itself on us at every turn, should take precedence.
Yes, I know there's Cygwin, but it's huge and a major pain in the ass and I consider the ugliest of hacks.
And is overkill for about 99% of the scripting I do. If I want a real programming language, there are far better ones out than the PowerShell. It's too much for a command scripting language, and too little for heavy duty work. As usual, Microsoft foists another ginormous tool on admins, instead of taking the more rational minimalist approach. But that's alright. I expect 90% of Windows admins are terrified of the CLI anyways.
It will be a real competitor when it runs a properly compatible version of BASH, as opposed to that abortion PowerShell.
Thanks, but unless there's something truly fantastic about it, I'll continue running everything KVM, and if I want a Windows server it can be a guest. That way I'm not paying vast licensing fees for a bunch of cruft I don't want.
You're a lying quack who should be sitting in a prison sell for defrauding your witless "patients".
I actually had one of these dingbats come into my office one time. I had a pretty bad headcold and this weird woman poked her head in the door and saw the network set up and started telling me how I was sick because of the radiation, but that she had a friend who made a bracelet that could keep the evil RF waves from hurting me. Fortunately someone came along and escorted the wingbat away.
I get sick sitting in front of any TV, largely because I apparently have an allergy to pretty much everything that's shown on it.
Or the fucking sun, apparently. I trust they're all living several miles below ground.
And in other news, the barn door was closed after the cows had come home.
Ants are social organisms, but it a completely different way. Hive societies are a different creature entirely.