13 replies to this topic

[Brito]

Available as update, it is now possible to run Linux command line tools directly from Windows.

 

Looks like fun.

 

http://www.theverge....nux-ubuntu-bash

 

[pscEx]

Have a look at the calendar for today's date.

 

Peter

[karyonix]

Have a look at the calendar for today's date.

 

Peter

But the article is from 2 days ago.

[Wonko the Sane]

Yep, it is true, though I personally fail to see the reason for all the hype around it, JFYI:

http://blog.dustinki...indows.html?m=1

 

Wonko

[Brito]

Was indeed for fun.. :-)

 

I guess this is a slow admission that end-users are not exactly going crazy to adopt powershell over the good old command prompt window.

 

With the failure of powershell, then the next best thing seems indeed to jump into the linux shell which seems to be growing so popular nowadays.

 

At this point I'm just sad that Microsoft is neglecting so much the command line. Ubuntu is bringing their package manager to Windows and Microsoft itself is still without package manager or further improvements on the command prompt window (because we should be using powershell now).

[Wonko the Sane]

I guess this is a slow admission that end-users are not exactly going crazy to adopt powershell over the good old command prompt window.

 

With the failure of powershell, then the next best thing seems indeed to jump into the linux shell which seems to be growing so popular nowadays.

 

At this point I'm just sad that Microsoft is neglecting so much the command line. Ubuntu is bringing their package manager to Windows and Microsoft itself is still without package manager or further improvements on the command prompt window (because we should be using powershell now).

Well, sometimes an image (and a comment) are worth a thousand words:

http://futurice.com/...and-line-part-1

 

 

(please note how the nice picture was created, after making an intentionally crippled/obfuscated  batch performing a seemingly pointless, stupid and/or dangerous action, to show how Powershell is MORE readable).

 

And just to have an idea of what someone "working at Microsoft" thinks and which kind of personality he has:

http://blog.nullspace.io/batch.html

 

Wonko

[v77]

Well, sometimes an image (and a comment) are worth a thousand words:

http://futurice.com/...and-line-part-1

 

 

(please note how the nice picture was created, after making an intentionally crippled/obfuscated  batch performing a seemingly pointless, stupid and/or dangerous action, to show how Powershell is MORE readable).

 

Even in this example, I still find batch more readable than PS...

[Brito]

Even in this example, I still find batch more readable than PS...

 

Was thinking the same..

 

Really miss 4DOS and related batch scripts, those were the ones that I could really use for creating interactive programs. They followed the batch spirit and added useful stuff.

[omniplex]

If anybody here needs a BATCH.KLD (Kedit Language Definition) for syntax highlighting of Windows NT BAT or CMD scripts in Keditw32.exe, holler.  It's really hard to imagine a worse shell, but I'm not tempted to try PowerShell or bash while I have REXX (Regina or ooRexx) and awk (as last resort).

[Icecube]

Having a real bash shell in Windows would make Windows finally useful for working interactively with the command line.

The default windows TAB completion in the terminal is awful.

Also the middle mouse button click to paste text, is a thing I miss in Windows.

[Wonko the Sane]

With all due respect, the one or the other ports of bash (or similar) have been available on Windows NT since NT 3.51, *like*:

http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/

https://sourceforge....win-bash/files/

or (if the issue is the auto-completion):

https://mridgers.github.io/clink/

or:

https://sourceforge....projects/pycmd/

surely, maybe an older bash version and/or not as smooth as this new MS "integrated" release, but I really cannot see the reason for all this excitement.

It seems more like a LINE (as the reverse of WINE) than anything else, and if this is the case, then the bash in itself is the least of the improvements, though we will have to see if the thingy will actually allow the use of "objects" that exist in *nix but do not in Windows, let's say raw sockets and named pipes.

 

Wonko

[alacran]

All this is because Azure uses Linux code, they were not able to code it using MS code.

 

alacran

[omniplex]

ports of bash (or similar) have been available on Windows NT since NT 3.51

Wonko

It's also contained in git for Windows (even x64, but admittedly I only use diff in the git package, because its SVN was broken when i wanted it, and now I use Slik SVN + git diff without bash / tortoise / other creatures.) 

[AceInfinity]

I had seen a video about this on Channel9 a while back. Personally I'm not too excited about some things because there have been many Windows ports for certain utilities being that Windows users wanted alternatives. It's just nice that it'll finally be *native*.

 

I have SSH from Git for Windows already though, in addition to an alternative to grep for Windows (Sift) https://sift-tool.org/. Maybe bash scripts will be more helpful however in contrast to powershell? I'm also hoping that the terminal has full unicode and color support like on Linux, which would be nice to run VI on instead of having to use gVim all the time.At that point I can finally use ConEmu for practically all of my needs.

 

edit: Apparently this *native* bash will not run Windows binaries though? What's the point? So you need to use *native* bash to run some kind of reverse Wine-like emulator to run a Windows program?