[oblio]

    We should be focusing on saner bash defaults, since it's the most common shell in use.

That kind of work is not glamorous and highly controversial. Ideally there should be some sort of cross distro/OS working group (Debian/Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, etc.), similar to the working groups that standardize the web, where such proposals can be made, voted on and adopted.

For example there should be no reason in 2016 why a sane solution can't be found for having almost every bash installation recognize all keys on the keyboard (i.e. arrow keys wouldn't produce ^A sequences or similar).

Another thing that would be sorely needed but would involve a much higher volume of work would be a template, at least for all GNU utils, which they use to define they options, parameters, arguments, whatever. And by "template" I mean library, actual working code they could include and configure.

Instead of each shell (bash, zsh) having to come with a million small scripts that configure auto completion, these shells could just query the standard-compliant tool for its usage and would receive a standardized reply with everything. Powershell has something like this and it is a great idea.

[iheartmemcache]

I've been using -nix for almost 20 years. I've used everything from ksh on SunOS 2.6 (Solaris?? what's that) to oh-my-zsh (for 3 years, before happily graduating to oh-my-fish). I grew up on Slackware 6 waiting hours and hours for a 2.2 kernel build to finish. In high school, FreeBSD 4.3 kernel mods took up more time than booze and women. My 3 year puppy love for oh-my-zsh dimmed as I transitioned to a more sane, less emotional woman - oh-my-fish.

I hate to admit it, but Microsoft just got it right with Powershell. Standardizing the convention with an intuitive Verb-Noun, the out of the box documentation with -examples, -full, etc goes into so much detail that if everyone used it, there wouldn't be any dumb "How does I move directory??" questions on Stackoverflow (well, there'd be less at least).

Don't know a command? Show-Commands and type in 'network' to see what's available. Don't see it there? Go get a Powershell script (often offered by vendors like VMware and Citrix, making devop lives easier). I remember spending _weeks_ trying to get my dual-boot machine (FBSD / Win2k) Cygwin/msys setup to work well on my P3 600 at 12 or 13. Now I can just Feature install Bash and get a native binary. Let me say that again -- now, I can Feature install Bash on Windows jeeebus. QT is LGPL. CLR is open source. Visual Studio Community (basically Professional) is free (unless you need historical debugging then Ultimate's going to cost a lot). Satya + Meijers + Hanselman et al have made favor Microsoft so hard, despite being an active donor of the FSF.

That GNUutils-with-autocomplete is real trivial to write, but since it's already in fish, I see no need to right it. :smug: [In all seriousness, I agree with you re: standards. Plan 9's interface standards semi-addressed that. But le sigh such is life.]

[MichaelGG]

Powershell's almost great. Things are way too verbose. No built-in stuff like curl or wget (yes, there's a simple webrequest thing and aliases, but they're clunky). In fact, it feels like everything in PS is clunky.

Just simple stuff like "time ./foo" becomes "Measure-Command {... }" and then it prints out 10 lines of the same measurement, in different units. And doesn't distinguish CPU time versus wall time.

All that adds up and makes PS crap for interactive work. As far as writing programs, PS is a much better programming language than bash.

And yes, I understand that using a bunch of 3 or 4-char names kills your global namespace. But judicious use really aids ergonomics.

[iheartmemcache]

Yeah, for things like that, I have a wrapper function and/or aliases which get loaded with PowerShell. The over-verbosity I'd imagine really helps the "click next-get cheques" guys who are a little intimidated by the command-line. (I on the otherhand bleed Hayes 9600 baud and VT220 green cold cathode.). 'ps aux' wouldn't really cut it. Just like one customizes their bash, fish, zsh or whatever shell, you customize your PS shell with modules (the Powershell Community Extensions (PSCX)) and other such things (SQL Server integration with Powershell? Yes please!).

So you effectively can do t foo, which your alias to a wrapper script around Measure-Command and get the same effect. But, wait, you also want to log the outputs, just to keep track of the progress as you refine the memory allocation on my_malloc.cc. Pop into ISE[1] stock with Windows 8+ (or your favorite Powershell editor) add a few lines and now you can have a log that associates each revision with it's performance. Keep it open like you would your editor and your .bashrc or .zshrc or whatnot.

The great thing about that is I only have to write the verbose command once and it's entirely clear what that command does. I can share it with anyone and they can run it, assuming they have .NET 4 or higher. They know immediately what it does.

RE: Other software - All the unix utils (grep, awk, etc) are in a downloadable "Gow". Windows has a package manager "chocolatey" which is basically like the apt repos. All the software is vetted. Heavily. They run every binary through VirusTotal which is 57 engines from the enterprise Sophos type stuff to the less-good-ones.

I've run into one bug in 18 months (multiple python installs 2.7.1 / 3.4.x + the env var of PythonHome conflicting references. I'm sure there's a solution but I don't care enough about python to research it).

[1] https://i.imgur.com/dXmT2MX.png

[mpweiher]

Hayes 9600 baud? VT220? Geez, kids these days...setting your (directly attached) ADM-3s to 1200 bps in order to smooth over the task-switching jerkiness of your PDP-11 ;-)

Back to PowersShell. When I first looked at it, it seemed like just the right answer, but on closer inspection...not so much. Being able to customise: yes. Having to customise right out of the gate to get an even barely usable experience: not so much.

It is obvious that the task is difficult, but PowerShell shows many interesting direction and some ways to not solve it.

[Amezarak]

> No built-in stuff like curl or wget (yes, there's a simple webrequest thing and aliases, but they're clunky).

wget is a built-in alias in Powershell. 'Wget' alone gets you an object of course, with the status code, headets, etc. included. (wget http://google.com).Content gets you the content.

Seems about the same as basic uses of wget. Can you go into more detail?

The verbosity doesn't bother me too much personally: it saves me a lot of time remembering commands and there's tab completion, and of course there's aliases.

[GauntletWizard]

Powershell seemed like a great advance upon cmd, until I realized it was a great step backwards from Python. It's an objectful interpreted scripting language, but suffers from poor namespacing, verbosity, and some fairly insane defaults.

Meanwhile, IPython as a shell[1] has been around for years. I do mostly python scripting, and spend much of my day at an ipython shell. I don't personally use it as a general purpose shell, but it is perfectly acceptable for many problems that I use if for.

[1]http://ipython.readthedocs.org/en/stable/interactive/shell.h...

[superobserver]

Your complaint about clunkiness isn't wrong. But consider the contrast of (1) stating a full phrase that preserves the symmetry between syntactical constructs with their semantic counterparts or (2) the acronymic representation thereof. Whilst (1) is always clunky, it tends to be easier to use for non-experts, whereas (2) is minimal but requires an expert-level familiarity. In essence, it is little different from the contrast between written English and written Chinese.

[spc476]

It sounds a lot like the VMS shell (outside the directory manipulation and file redirection which was horrid, it wasn't that bad of a shell and the help facility was first rate).

[friendzis]

Powershell on itself does have really nice design decisions, but does not interact well with the whole system, leading to interoperability, portability issues and being clunky to use, in my view. It looks like PS is designed more towards DevOpsing (let developers do some administrative tasks in a familiar environment) than systems administration. Some of the rough edges I have encountered in the past:

The whole point about piping objects (.NET class instances, sort of) around is really awesome, except that even on 8.1 (did not check on 10) standard utilities like ipconfig output wall of text, which has to be string-parsed.

To be fair, there are cmdlets for most if not all subsystems, except that wrappers are sometimes too shallow, e.g. System.ServiceProcess.ServiceController returned by Get-Service does not expose delete(), so you have to resort to WMI. I have not used PS extensively enough, but would not be surprised if some tasks would require one to resort to wmic, netsh or similar tools.

Powershell is not automatically updated, so you can find anything between 1 to 5 and anything portable has to be written for 1. e.g. Get-Service, which is in global namespace, is available since 3. IIRC W7 ships with 2.

Powershell allows to use .NET directly, e.g. spawn process with [System.Diagnostics.Process]::Start, except as with above, you have no idea which version of .NET is available on target system.

I found no other way to gain administrative privileges except for relaunching itself in administrative context.

PS ISE could be used to incrementally write and debug scripts by directly fine tuning each command, except that it is non-interactive, so utilities asking for password are kind of painful.

[AckSyn]

Slackware jumped from Version 4 to 7 back in 1999.

Anyways, Powershell is pretty amazing and they did get it right. However, some of the syntax leaves much to be desired. I mean this:

Get-ChildItem $Path | Where {$_.extension -eq '.DLL'}

It's the worst example of a recursive search for a specific file extension, easiest being "gci -Recurse -Include .DLL", but the syntax using {$_. ,'*'} is used in many places, most of which I've been able to figure out less complicated replacements and achieve the same results. This includes being able to pipe out each "object" in the resulting text appropriately.

This isn't a bash against powershell. They did get it right, but I'm left wondering why they bothered including this kind of syntax'ing?

[gioele]

> That kind of work is not glamorous and highly controversial. Ideally there should be some sort of cross distro/OS working group (Debian/Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, etc.), similar to the working groups that standardize the web, where such proposals can be made, voted on and adopted.

Like the Austin group, the technical committee that constantly releases updates to POSIX and the Single Unix Specification? http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

[oblio]

Aren't those folks more "enterprise" oriented than "quality of life" oriented?

[GunboatDiplomat]

I have to disagree with the idea that everything should be standardized. What's the point of different distros if everything is just going to be the same? Might as well just tell everyone, "Ok, we're all going to use CentOS."

[oblio]

If you want shipping, you want standards. They should be creative in the UI and system administration tools (maybe not even for those tooks), otherwise we can't build anything on top of them.

There's no real use for 3000 distributions anyway. Most of them can't even support the software they include properly. And most of them duplicate so much effort it's not even funny anymore (rpm vs deb, yum vs apt, etc.).

Standards are generally good (HTTP, IP, SSL, TCP, POSIX, USB, etc.).

[GunboatDiplomat]

There should be a standard withing the organization (we use CentOS for everything internally), and for systems which need to inter-operate, for example, the internet.

There does not need to be a standard for shells, for network script syntax, etc.

You say they duplicate effort, which is true, but you assume the effort being expended would simply be redirected where you think it's needed. If you kill off half of distros, you probably just cause the people working on them to go away, not switch to one of the remaining distros.

[oblio]

I've been using Linux for a long time and I've been involved in discussions about this for as long. A while ago I wouldn't have had a good argument, but now I do:

> If you kill off half of distros, you probably just cause the people working on them to go away, not switch to one of the remaining distros.

That would actually be good. Except for their personal benefit: they're having fun, together with their friends or random people on the internet, they're learning, etc., for the rest of us, they don't help that much, they just serve to increase the confusion. They also help drive away commercial software developers since Linux users in general are very active and vocal. And then we get stuff like "why isn't software X ported to distribution Y".

Not much real value would be lost if half of today's distributions would be lost. Specialized ones, like system recovery, penetration testing, firewall ones, file system layout experiments (Gobo) would still be useful. But the myriad distributions in existence are an exercise in anarchy. They're not even an exercise in democracy since democracy involves also caring about your fellow men and exercising self control and discipline, which many of those distributions don't. As I said, the vast majority of distributions can't even support their software, see the recent security fiasco with Linux Mint. Which is a very popular distro!