What Are You Doing Right Now
-
Think of it this way...
"What is the function of Java?"... To create software.
"What is the function of C# .NET?"... To create software.
"What is the function of BASH?"... to administer operating systems.
"What is the function of PowerShell?"... to create objects makes no sense in any context. It can create objects, so can F#, VB or Python. But that's not a goal or a purpose. It's just an under the hood artefact of how it is attempting to accomplish its job. -
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
PowerShell is a systems management tool, just like BASH is.
Right, so at the goal level, they share a function. That they approach it differently is fine. That one approaches it in a way that makes it fast, flexible, powerful, and simple and the other in a way that makes it convoluted, slow, and less flexible determines the quality of them.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
-
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But the underlying components of what holds that data together is different, meaning one tool needs to have a different design to deal with a different system.
That's not how programming languages work. CMD can get uptime from Windows, so can BASH. And both can do it faster than PowerShell can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
PowerShell is a systems management tool, just like BASH is.
Right, so at the goal level, they share a function. That they approach it differently is fine. That one approaches it in a way that makes it fast, flexible, powerful, and simple and the other in a way that makes it convoluted, slow, and less flexible determines the quality of them.
yeah, a bucket and a water balloon both share a function too... to hold water.
The same arguments can be made here. The bucket holds water better, but for a different system than for what a balloon holds water for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But the underlying components of what holds that data together is different, meaning one tool needs to have a different design to deal with a different system.
That's not how programming languages work. CMD can get uptime from Windows, so can BASH. And both can do it faster than PowerShell can.
I got uptime pretty damn fast in PS... I think faster than in BASH!
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
In that case, a bucket of water could be a shitshow too, because you have to be super careful to not spill any. Whereas with the balloon, you tie it off and can go running with it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
PS could have a place, but as a system admin tool it is so "heavy" and so slow and convoluted, I don't feel it has a place there. For decades before PS was released, the Windows community begged for a native port of Bash (we don't get one currently due to licensing restrictions) so that Windows could compete with everyone else (everyone else uses a Bash or similar shell, or at least offers it.) It would work fine, that CMD works guarantees it. Instead, CMD got effectively abandoned and the monstrosity of PS was created, almost to mock Windows users.
PS requires so much more experience and time to use, and in the end, you don't get more efficient than on other tools, you just start to close the gap.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
In that case, a bucket of water could be a shitshow too, because you have to be super careful to not spill any. Whereas with the balloon, you tie it off and can go running with it.
But you can carry more water faster.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
yeah, a bucket and a water balloon both share a function too... to hold water.
The same arguments can be made here. The bucket holds water better, but for a different system than for what a balloon holds water for.No, that's a shared means. They both hold water. but one does so for the goal of transport, and the other does so for the goal of a weapon. Means here match, but the goals are different.
BASH and PS share goals. 100%, identical goals. But completely different means.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
Except it is twice as fast as PS. So which is actually the shit show?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
PS could have a place, but as a system admin tool it is so "heavy" and so slow and convoluted, I don't feel it has a place there. For decades before PS was released, the Windows community begged for a native port of Bash (we don't get one currently due to licensing restrictions) so that Windows could compete with everyone else (everyone else uses a Bash or similar shell, or at least offers it.) It would work fine, that CMD works guarantees it. Instead, CMD got effectively abandoned and the monstrosity of PS was created, almost to mock Windows users.
PS requires so much more experience and time to use, and in the end, you don't get more efficient than on other tools, you just start to close the gap.
I'm not seeing this so "heavy slow" example.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
But what BASH was designed to manage means the tool has to be designed differently than a tool that would be for managing something designed completely different.
That's not true. CMD didn't have to be designed differently. That PowerShell went that way is nothing but a choice. Don't mistake what they "did" with what they "could have done." Bash on Windows would work great, and does. But it isn't native.
Yeah, and CMD is a shitshow.
In that case, a bucket of water could be a shitshow too, because you have to be super careful to not spill any. Whereas with the balloon, you tie it off and can go running with it.
But you can carry more water faster.
Who says the bucket and the balloon don't hold the same amount of water? Fast is relative.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I got uptime pretty damn fast in PS... I think faster than in BASH!
I guarantee you didn't. Every time you say that, you are setting up PS, spending all the time to do it, and THEN timing only the command. So in neither case are you timing the shell, in both cases you are timing the command called by the shell.
You are timing the wrong pieces of the equation.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I'm not seeing this so "heavy slow" example.
It's EVERY example. PS is heavy and slow. there is no way around it, no case where it isn't true. You are firing up PS, waiting for it to start, and then timing things that aren't PS and ignoring how long PS itself is taking to get you to the point of doing a non-PS task.
-
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller Is your stance that PS just makes everything harder and that BASH is so simple that there is little to no reason to need the other?
PS could have a place, but as a system admin tool it is so "heavy" and so slow and convoluted, I don't feel it has a place there. For decades before PS was released, the Windows community begged for a native port of Bash (we don't get one currently due to licensing restrictions) so that Windows could compete with everyone else (everyone else uses a Bash or similar shell, or at least offers it.) It would work fine, that CMD works guarantees it. Instead, CMD got effectively abandoned and the monstrosity of PS was created, almost to mock Windows users.
PS requires so much more experience and time to use, and in the end, you don't get more efficient than on other tools, you just start to close the gap.
I'm not seeing this so "heavy slow" example.
I just attempted
Get-uptimefrom powershell and I was told "this doesn't exist'.That's slower because if I wanted that functionality I have to go and install it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I'm not seeing this so "heavy slow" example.
It's EVERY example. PS is heavy and slow. there is no way around it, no case where it isn't true. You are firing up PS, waiting for it to start, and then timing things that aren't PS and ignoring how long PS itself is taking to get you to the point of doing a non-PS task.
I click on it, it starts up right away, I start typing right after I click to open, hit enter, and get my uptime. I do not see this heavy slowness you speak of!
-
I'm a bit of a novice to tell the difference between them, but am I correct in stating that powershell calls other functions that aren't a part of it, where bash has all of the functions built in?
