Hacker News Reader

Comment by mahmud | Hacker News Reader

More like

  C: \>  instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS
  C: \>

Cryptically named command with verbose arguments, that then goes on to fire a GUI window that requires manual intervention: that's the Microsoft way.

View on HN

I take it you haven't used PowerShell much ...

I have tried PowerShell a few times but I can't never appreciate it.

Yes, it technical superior than it's counterparts on Linux by piping objects instead of mangling text, but the syntax of PowerShell is just too convoluted.

I have concluded that when doing command line you want to write commands and not program code to execute.

That's why bash is usually straight on and powerful for the 95% commands you do. It's edge cases when you need to do horrible awk piping and general guess work.

PowerShell feels the other way around. Easy for the 5% edge cases, but pain for the 95% common stuff.

Yes, you can create aliases in PowerShell for the most common tasks, but then you don't really learn the powerful mechanics that you need to know.

And it does not help that you need to learn one more scripting language. Microsoft should have gone for JavaScript.

Maybe I'm missing something in the greatness of PowerShell?

My point here was mostly that

    instpkg32.exe /DefaultSettings:ALL_DEFAULTS

is something that doesn't really exist anymore for management tools on Windows, except those that have been around for a long time. Even the GUIs on Windows Server nowadays just drive a PowerShell runspace behind the scenes and you can script just as easily as click around.

Install-Package is a PowerShell cmdlet and thus gets sane and consistent argument parsing and discovery for free. Something like instpkg32.exe simply won't exist for a new feature here.

As for your complaints, I can gladly answer them and other questions, but it's probably a bit OT here.

Sane and consistent are two words I would never use with Powershell. Well, it's consistently insane, but I imagine that's not a typo.

Or-Do-You-Enjoy-Over-Verbose-Capitals-And-Dashes-As-You-Enjoy-Shift-Ballet?

You do realize that PowerShell is case-insensitive (you don't need to hit Shift unless you need it for something like parentheses) and there are aliases to ease typing when you're just using the shell? (I wouldn't recommend using aliases in scripts, though.)

Besides, if this is about command parameters, all that's needed is the dash and enough letters so the parameter name is unambiguous; for many common commands that's not longer than the single-letter arguments to Unix tools. And they are case-insensitive, too. No need for Shift here either.

But perhaps you do enjoy the haphazard mix of /parameters, -parameters, --parameters, /p, -p with varying ways of specifying arguments to those parameters, like /x:foo, /xfoo, /x foo, /x=foo that can be found all over the place in the default Windows command-line tools (because that's what the argument was about here). In that case, yes, PowerShell is probably a huge step backwards.

You know, eg, Get-Process is `ps` and nearly every common command has two or three character aliases?

Aliases are the biggest enemy of consistency.

Yes, I know. What I wrote had nothing to do with your point. I just did a fork of the conversation. Apologies if it created any unnecessary noise.

Not Any More, so we're told. I hope they prove it.

I'll believe it when they let me resize the cmd window

Windows 10 command prompt will indeed let you resize the window. It will even re-flow the text already written, i.e. a long string written that flowed across several lines will also flow back into one line, once the window gets wide enough.

FINALLY! \o/

You have always been able to resize the cmd window, not sure what you mean here.

Vertically yes, but horizontally it's capped.

Open cmd window, left click on icon on left of cmd title bar, adjust window size in Defaults and Properties. This includes, height, width and buffer size.

Unlike every other window, where you can change the horizontal size by dragging.

It's a relic and I'm glad they're fixing it, but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad.

>but as with the browser they're only delivering changes because third-party software innovated them and it's making them look bad.

How is that a bad thing? Firefox was kinda stagnant before Chrome came around and took the performance throne, I don't see anyone criticizing Mozilla for that.

How were you able to do that? I was only able to change the height of it personnally, very annoying.

Considering a resizable cmd with real copy/paste support is part of Windows 10, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Good job at not reading the article! Had you read it, you would've learned that the commands work like this:

    Find-Package Firefox
    Install-Package Firefox

I admit it's not as easy as on e.g. Debian:

    sudo apt-get remove iceweasel
    sudo echo deb http://packages.linuxmint.com debian import >>/etc/apt/sources.list
    sudo gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 3EE67F3D0FF405B2
    sudo gpg --export 3EE67F3D0FF405B2 > 3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg
    sudo apt-key add ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg
    sudo rm ./3EE67F3D0FF405B2.gpg
    sudo apt-get update
    sudo apt-get install firefox

This is a deliberately contrived example, the only line that matter is the last one:

    sudo apt-get install firefox

Firefox isn't in the Debian repos, unfortunately. But Iceweasel is installed by default on the desktop, so there's that. Unfortunately, Iceweasel is chronically behind mainline Firefox and suffers from many horrifying bugs that make it almost not worth the effort to try to use, which is why the grandparent comment goes through so much effort (Well, outside of the obviously well planted troll.)

Also, Linux Mint is a terrible way to get Firefox for Debian. You're better off installing it from the "Ubuntuzilla" repo, which contains just Mozilla components built for Debian-based OSes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ubuntuzilla/ (Ignore the hellhole that Sourceforge has become).

Honestly, I wish Mozilla would just create a Debian repo (and one with Nightlies would be nice), but I understand the scorched earth there...

This is the problem I have with a lot of software. We're supposed to use redhat, for example, but don't subscribe to the RHEL repos. So I then I have to go add EPEL repos or find whatever repo the actual piece of software I want is in. Like google chrome, each time I can remember where to get it.

What horrifying Iceweasel bugs did you experience?

What is this... I don't even...

It's adding a debian-compatible repo (from Linux Mint Debian Edition) in order to replace Iceweasel (firefox without the branding) with Firefox (firefox with the branding). Firefox's branding is incompatible with Debian's licensing requirements, and they amicably split the branding years ago as a result.

The example was intentionally selected to be as obfuscatory as possible, in order to be a troll. Most of those commands are about adding a repository rather than installing software, anyway (and the four lines involving gpg are usually done in a single line)

Not to mention involves adding a GPG-backed repository, something that this Windows plae imitation can't do.

For those downmodding the parent post: the author is being sarcastic, but the commands are entirely accurate - due to Firefox's trademark, Debian does not ship Firefox or include it in their repositories. Adding a new repo, and the keys required to sign that repo are entirely necessary to install Firefox on Debian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com