"Windows 10 "Developer Mode""

"Windows 10 "Developer Mode""
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Window...loperMode.aspx

"The new Windows 10 update coming in a few weeks. It's called Windows 10 "Anniversary Edition" (I would have just called it 10.1,
because, I dunno, monotonically increasing numbers and all, but whatever) and it has a LOT of really nice refinements."

"Windows 10 is continuously updated and has been a few times since release, but this most recent one adds a lot of cool stuff like
support for Bash on Ubuntu for Developers. For some folks who say they "wait for version 3" - this coming update is that version 3."

Lynn

This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.) Why would I want bash?
It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

And while Mr. Hanselman tells us we should be
wet over "developer settings", they're not developer
settings at all. It's just a further obfuscation beyond
hiding things behind an "Advanced" button.

Showing "hidden" files used to be an option in
Folder Options. Then it was still an option but
Windows showed a worrisome message and put a
pesky desktop.ini file on the Desktop if one decided
to show hidden files. Now it's a "developer setting".
It's just going to scare more people out of using
their OS.

This is just sleazy Microsoft advertising, posing
as tech news. And presumably you're just a
Microsoft shill.

------------------------------------------------

| http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Window...loperMode.aspx
|
| "The new Windows 10 update coming in a few weeks. It's called Windows 10
"Anniversary Edition" (I would have just called it 10.1,
| because, I dunno, monotonically increasing numbers and all, but whatever)
and it has a LOT of really nice refinements."
|
| "Windows 10 is continuously updated and has been a few times since
release, but this most recent one adds a lot of cool stuff like
| support for Bash on Ubuntu for Developers. For some folks who say they
"wait for version 3" - this coming update is that version 3."
|
| Lynn

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:20:10 -0400
"Mayayana" wrote:

This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.)

It's not Ubuntu it's just bash. It exists on Windows for years as
cygwin and mingw. This time it's just that Canonical provides shell
and utilities instead of RedHat...

Why would I want bash?

I programmed on Windows XP for Linux for years with cygwin ...

It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

It's not for you obviously....

Melzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:20:10 -0400
"Mayayana" wrote:

This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.)

It's not Ubuntu it's just bash. It exists on Windows for years as
cygwin and mingw. This time it's just that Canonical provides shell
and utilities instead of RedHat...

Why would I want bash?

I programmed on Windows XP for Linux for years with cygwin ...

It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

It's not for you obviously....

It doesn't have an Xserver, but that didn't stop
someone from adding one and running (Linux) Firefox.
Just to show it could do graphics, given a vehicle.

I used the Gawk 4 on the bash shell, when my
eight year old gnuwin32 Gawk 3 crashed one day
while filtering a 30GB file. The Gawk 4 version
didn't have the right line ending handling,
but once that was corrected by adding a couple
lines of code, the run finished and I got my
output. The processing rate in that case,
was seemingly the same.

I haven't had a need of it since.

But just like MacOSX has Fink, it's nice to have
something to play with as an alternative source
of solution now and then.

And since it's hosted in the Windows Store, and
doesn't come on the DVD, the bash shell "doesn't
cost you anything". It's not like you have
to haul bash around when you didn't ask for it.
Which is more than you can say for some other
features on the OS.

Paul

On 07/22/16 16:20, Mayayana so wittily quipped:
This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.) Why would I want bash?
It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

I think if you gave it a try, UNIX-style shell scripting might appeal to
you.

Apparently you've just never seen a powerful shell script before. As an
example, I wrote a bash script for a Raspberry Pi that, together with
some relatively simple custom hardware and simple C utilities, manages
the flash+test procedure for a circuit board in a production
environment, including the display of status text on a 2-line LCD
display, and handling input via push buttons to control the flow and
options. It's a simple interface, yeah, for what BECAME a simple
process (using this test device), and a bash shell script manages nearly
all of it, making it EXTREMELY EASY to maintain by 'not me'. The device
can be replicated, modified for newer revisions, etc. without a lot of
expense.

By the way, OSX already HAS bash... since it's UNIX under the hood.
It's WAY superior to CMD, power shell, or anything ELSE cooked up by
Micro-shaft for the command line. but I'll stick with Cygwin for that
functionality, since it works in nearly ALL windows versions, NOT just
Win-10-nic.

There's more UNIX-like OSs out there than Windows-like, last I checked.
It pays to know both, now. And Ubu isn't 'spyware' any more.
Canonical got the hint. It was only 'spyware' if you used the 'Unity'
interface, which stinks on ice. Mint is a derivative of Ubu that
doesn't have any of that, and gives you OPTIONS for a nice 3D
skeumorphic interface with Mate and Cinnamon desktops. And there's KDE
too, if you want that.


FYI - Win-10-nic by itself is the 'lipstick on a pig' already. But you
knew that, most likely. Or, I guess win-10-nic is the 'pig' with bash
being the 'lipstick'?


And while Mr. Hanselman tells us we should be
wet over "developer settings", they're not developer
settings at all. It's just a further obfuscation beyond
hiding things behind an "Advanced" button.

now THAT does NOT surprise me at all!


Showing "hidden" files used to be an option in
Folder Options. Then it was still an option but
Windows showed a worrisome message and put a
pesky desktop.ini file on the Desktop if one decided
to show hidden files. Now it's a "developer setting".
It's just going to scare more people out of using
their OS.

you hit the nail on that one


This is just sleazy Microsoft advertising, posing
as tech news. And presumably you're just a
Microsoft shill.

nice 'recovery'. I now agree with most of what you said.

On 07/22/16 18:30, Paul so wittily quipped:
Melzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:20:10 -0400
"Mayayana" wrote:

This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.)

It's not Ubuntu it's just bash. It exists on Windows for years as
cygwin and mingw. This time it's just that Canonical provides shell
and utilities instead of RedHat...

Why would I want bash?

I programmed on Windows XP for Linux for years with cygwin ...

It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

It's not for you obviously....

It doesn't have an Xserver, but that didn't stop
someone from adding one and running (Linux) Firefox.
Just to show it could do graphics, given a vehicle.

XMing by any chance? (I ran that on XP a while back, tested it with
Interix/SFU/SUA - wasn't very impressed by the Interix X11 support, even
though I gave it a REALLY SERIOUS TRY, but you COULD code for X with
Cygwin and that worked well enough)

Big Bad Bob wrote:
On 07/22/16 16:20, Mayayana so wittily quipped:
This sounds to me like "lipstick on a pig". I don't
want Linux on Windows. Why would I want Ubuntu?
(Another spyware OS.) Why would I want bash?
It's the 21st century. I don't need another 1980s
console interpreter. I'm a developer. But none of
this appeals to me.

I think if you gave it a try, UNIX-style shell scripting might appeal to
you.

Apparently you've just never seen a powerful shell script before.

There are enough scripting languages and coding languages
to fill your boots with. It's whatever a person has
learned well, and fully uses, that counts.

(My favorite site for comparing approaches to a problem...)

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Lucas-Lehmer_test

In the line of work I was in, we never got into
language wars. We'd compare language lists, and
select something common, if there was a need
for collaboration. Otherwise, what you did in
your own cubicle, was your own business.

And as a result of working that way, I would
never "diss" someone elses choice of language.
If you've invested the time in learning how to
use it, go for it.

I worked with a guy in the lab, who used to test
his hardware in Assembler. I used to grit my
teeth, when looking over his shoulder at the
code he was writing. But I also knew better
than to meddle - if I upset the guy, I wouldn't
get any results out of him. And as long as I
could keep his part of the project on track,
that's all that mattered. That's how we handled
things at work. What mattered, was results.
"Never stick your hand in a machine with moving parts."

Paul

| I think if you gave it a try, UNIX-style shell scripting might appeal to
| you.
|

I have, and it doesn't. I consider it to be the
biggest problem with Linux. I shouldn't need to
type at commandline to accomplish *anything*.

| Apparently you've just never seen a powerful shell script before. As an
| example, I wrote a bash script for a Raspberry Pi that, together with
| some relatively simple custom hardware and simple C utilities, manages
| the flash+test procedure for a circuit board in a production
| environment, including the display of status text on a 2-line LCD
| display, and handling input via push buttons to control the flow and
| options. It's a simple interface, yeah, for what BECAME a simple
| process (using this test device), and a bash shell script manages nearly
| all of it, making it EXTREMELY EASY to maintain by 'not me'. The device
| can be replicated, modified for newer revisions, etc. without a lot of
| expense.
|

What you're describing is low-level technical stuff.
Most people don't need to do such things. If I need
to do something like that I'll write software with buttons
on it, so I won't have to open a console window.

I do a great deal with VBScript through the Windows
Script Host. I recently wrote an image editor and scanner
interface. I also wrote a javascript de-obfuscator. Both
run as HTA webpages in IE. The difference between what
you're doing and what I'm doing is that you have to type,
and when you write a script it's in raw form. I've written
code once that allows me to just drag/drop and click in
the future. I can edit the code if necessary, but it's designed
so that I'll never again need to type code or commands in
order to use it.
There's a reason why we have the GUI and mouse. It's
easier to drag/drop a file than it is to type in its path. In
my experience, the people who love console are usually
the oldtimers who just never got used to using a mouse
and GUI buttons. Or, they're youngsters who are enamored
of the "secret decoder ring" atmosphere around typing arcane,
terse commands into a window. It seems powerful, like a
witch's incantation that no one else can understand.

| By the way, OSX already HAS bash... since it's UNIX under the hood.
| It's WAY superior to CMD, power shell, or anything ELSE cooked up by
| Micro-shaft for the command line.

Maybe so. So what? And for what purpose? I'm assuming
your bash script is not GUI-integrated; that you can't just
drop a file onto your saved script file and have it do a job.
For instance, I process my website server logs each day,
dropping the raw log file onto a VBScript, which then uses
COM objects to convert the IPs to hostnames and find their
geo-location. It then writes a new log with that info and adds
a report of the number of unique visitors. Another script
extracts info about search engine links arriving at my site.
I don't have to type a single character. I just drop my log file
onto the script. I'm guessing bash can't do that quite so
smoothly.

Microsoft came out with Windows
Script Host in 1998, as an update from DOS batch files
for the age of GUI. It allows for command line but also
allows for highly complex programming that takes advantage
of the Windows GUI, recognizes the GUI, and is fully COM
compatible, which means script under the WSH can do just
about anything that's made available to it through a COM
interface. That includes automation of IE, Word, Explorer
and numerous other options, because MS has made a lot
of what Windows can do available through COM. I also have
more varied programming tools in Windows. For instance,
I do a lot with VB6. On Linux? Someone wrote a kiddie
tool with a cartoon lobster logo that he presents as being
the "right" way to do Basic code, for idiots coming from
Windows who insist on using Basic. It's a classic case of
Linux derision.

I could use WINE on Linux to support my investment in
VB6, except that WINE is still essentially beta after 20 years,
and the WINE people won't release API docs so that
Windows programmers might know which API calls are
supported and to what extent. It's little more than a
bunch of college students who want their favorite Windows
games to work on Linux.

PowerShell is just something MS
cooked up to make Windows servers look more like home
to Linux admins who might be convinced to switch over.

Saying bash is the most powerful command line tool is
like saying an Amish wagon is the most sophisticated
horse and buggy on the highway. If you want to use a
horse and buggy......

| There's more UNIX-like OSs out there than Windows-like, last I checked.
| It pays to know both, now.

Maybe so, but I notice that we're now talking
about bash in the context of knowing *nix, rather
than the usefulness of bash on Windows.

I've fiddled with Linux several times. Red Hat,
Mandrake/Mandriva and Suse. Each time I figure
that maybe I'll give it more of a chance if it can
pass a few simple tests. One such test is that
I should be able to set up the system to my liking
without needing to open a console window or go
digging into /etc for config file. Another requirement
is a simple firewall that allows me to control in and
out traffic by process, as I can do on Windows.
So far no Linux system has passed either test. I'm
not prepared to waste weeks screwing around with
command line and half-ass or missing docs. At this
point I'm very wary of wasting more time on Linux.
I just don't expect it to ever reach a level of polish
like Windows has achieved. Much of the Linux fan
base doesn't even want that.
Meanwhile, Linux is manifesting some of the same
problems that Windows has developed: An installer
that assumes I'm dumb and hides my install options.
A root that's no longer root, just as admin is no
longer admin. If I moved to Linux it would be in large
part to *not* have to deal with ninny design. That
reason is moot with Linux designers adding restrictions.

| FYI - Win-10-nic by itself is the 'lipstick on a pig' already. But you
| knew that, most likely. Or, I guess win-10-nic is the 'pig' with bash
| being the 'lipstick'?
|

I was referring more to the whole presentation, not
so much criticizing bash per se.
The post looks to me like a shill post. And the articles
linked are blog posts from an MS employee. What strikes
me about that kind of article is that it's wildly enthusiastic
marketing, posing as information. The author is not just
saying, "There are a few changes in the next Windows
release that might be of interest to you. Here are the
details". His presentation is more like, "I'm horny for the
next version of Windows!!! I'm sure you will be, too!!!
Golly, look at all these goodies!!!"

And what are the goodies: The bash aspect is of
very limited interest among Windows users/developers.
The "developer settings" are further obfuscation posing as
functionality. Yet he writes like Windows 10 Anniversary
will be transformative. And he's not even offering 6
free steak knives if I call now. He could at least offer
me 6 free steak knives and a free slicer-dicer.

On 2016-07-24, Mayayana wrote:
I have, and it doesn't. I consider it to be the
biggest problem with Linux. I shouldn't need to
type at commandline to accomplish *anything*.

The command line is where the real power and flexibility is. I use it
on a regular basis even when working with Windows systems.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| The command line is where the real power and flexibility is. I use it
| on a regular basis even when working with Windows systems.

I wait with great curiosity to see your keyboard-free,
DOS replacement, with more "power and flexibility", for
my server log processing script. Given that I can achieve
nearly any programming task with VBS (or javascript) under
Windows Script Host, I have to wonder what "real power"
is. Time travel? Anti-aging incantations?

To be fair, though, I guess it depends on what one
wants to do and what tools are available. If you want
a list of folder files and you don't know scripting or
programming languages, but do know DIR, then DIR is
the most powerful option.
But in general, command line is just a limited subset
of functionality existing in Windows, with limited
access. I can't imagine where you get the idea of
flexibility. You can only run one command at a time,
and you have to remember all those options and switches,
or copy them from some kind of crib sheet. While you're
running your DIR command, or maybe something a
bit more involved, I'm writing a VBScript to do a more
complex list of tasks by just dropping a folder onto it.
And once I've written that script I'll never need to deal
with typing text again in order to perform that
particular task.

The other factor here is that I don't want to have
to use a console window. I don't want to have to type
file paths and remember commandline options. It's a
pain in the neck. So for that to be of value it would
have to be not only a serviceable option but the only
option. On Linux that may sometimes be the case for
someone like myself who doesn't have experience
with Linux programming. On Windows, however, there's
nothing I can imagine that *requires* commandline.
Even if I want to do something using commandline I
could pack that into a script so that I don't have to
type it out again the second time.

On 25/07/2016 04:08, Mayayana wrote:
| The command line is where the real power and flexibility is. I use it
| on a regular basis even when working with Windows systems.

I wait with great curiosity to see your keyboard-free,
DOS replacement, with more "power and flexibility", for
my server log processing script. Given that I can achieve
nearly any programming task with VBS (or javascript) under
Windows Script Host, I have to wonder what "real power"
is. Time travel? Anti-aging incantations?

To be fair, though, I guess it depends on what one
wants to do and what tools are available. If you want
a list of folder files and you don't know scripting or
programming languages, but do know DIR, then DIR is
the most powerful option.
But in general, command line is just a limited subset
of functionality existing in Windows, with limited
access. I can't imagine where you get the idea of
flexibility. You can only run one command at a time,
and you have to remember all those options and switches,
or copy them from some kind of crib sheet. While you're
running your DIR command, or maybe something a
bit more involved, I'm writing a VBScript to do a more
complex list of tasks by just dropping a folder onto it.
And once I've written that script I'll never need to deal
with typing text again in order to perform that
particular task.

The other factor here is that I don't want to have
to use a console window. I don't want to have to type
file paths and remember commandline options. It's a
pain in the neck. So for that to be of value it would
have to be not only a serviceable option but the only
option. On Linux that may sometimes be the case for
someone like myself who doesn't have experience
with Linux programming. On Windows, however, there's
nothing I can imagine that *requires* commandline.
Even if I want to do something using commandline I
could pack that into a script so that I don't have to
type it out again the second time.



Duh!

What's in a script?
Lines of commands!

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

| Duh!
|
| What's in a script?
| Lines of commands!
|

No. If you're thinking of a DOS batch file
that's pretty much true. Maybe it's true with
Linux shell scripting. I don't know. Windows
scripting is interpreted programming code.
That's my point. It's GUI-aware,
COM-compatible and supports all the complexity
of a programming language: subs, functions,
classes, complex branching, objects, etc.

On 2016-07-25, Mayayana wrote:
Windows Script Host, I have to wonder what "real power"
is. Time travel? Anti-aging incantations?

Complete control over the system regardless of whether there is
a working GUI available or not.

But in general, command line is just a limited subset
of functionality existing in Windows, with limited

You can do just about anything via command line that you can with the GUI.
At least some versions of Windows server have the option of installing
without a GUI.

access. I can't imagine where you get the idea of
flexibility.

From over 40 years of professional experience working in the computer industry.

You can only run one command at a time,

Untrue. Multiple commands can be chained together and run simultaneously
using piping and I/O redirection.

and you have to remember all those options and switches,

That's what what "man" and "help" are for.

bit more involved, I'm writing a VBScript to do a more
complex list of tasks by just dropping a folder onto it.

I can do a very complex list of tasks in a directory using a variety
of scripting and text processing utilities, all without my hands leaving
the keyboard.

And once I've written that script I'll never need to deal
with typing text again in order to perform that
particular task.

Neither do I, just put the commands in a file to execute again at will.

The other factor here is that I don't want to have
to use a console window. I don't want to have to type

My only real use for a GUI is to run multiple terminals. Pointing and
clicking is a nuisance.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Complete control over the system regardless of whether there is
| a working GUI available or not.
|
| The other factor here is that I don't want to have
| to use a console window. I don't want to have to type
|
| My only real use for a GUI is to run multiple terminals. Pointing and
| clicking is a nuisance.
|

There are actually two topics here. It started
out with the idea of bash on Windows, and Big Bad
Bob saying that Linux scripting can be a useful
programming tool.
It's really two discussions about command line:

1) Is commandline scripting more powerful than
modern programming and scripting? Clearly not.
The design and functionality are at DOS level.
So there would be no reason for me to want to
swap VBScript for something as primitive as
console commands. Microsoft has extended it
somewhat with Power Shell, but PS just adds more
applets. It's still a clunky, limited system designed
mainly just to accomplish sys admin tasks.

If one really wants to mold functionality -- to
design one's own tools -- then Windows Script
Host or compiled software is the way to go.

2) Is commandline superior to GUI?
That's a different issue that you've raised.
Keyboard vs mouse. Console vs GUI. As you
stated above, console gives you "complete
control over the system".
Some people are not fond of the GUI and mouse.
That's OK. Keyboard has its place. And keyboard
options are necessary for blind people. But any
case where keyboard is superior is simply a case
of poor design. There's no excuse for not having
GUI methods to get things done. *That's the whole
point of the Windows OS. That's why it's called
Windows!*

The fundamental problem with Linux is
the very keyboard chauvinism that you espouse.
If it's easier (or necessary) to start typing in a
console window in order to update a library,
configure a setting, move files, etc then the
OS is poorly designed in terms of being a GUI OS.
At that point the tool itself is getting in the way
of its use. That's why it's never "the year of
the Linux desktop." No one but geeks thinks it's
cute to require expertise in the tool itself in order
to do a job with that tool.

The computer is a sophisticated tool. People
use it for writing, graphics, scientific research,
entertainment, reference, communication.....
You don't need to be an engineer to use a power
saw. You don't need to be a farmer to cook food.
You don't need to be an auto mechanic to use a car.
You shouldn't need to be a geek to use a computer.
Just as a car is equally useful to a car mechanic
or a dentist, a computer should be equally useful to
a geek or non-geek. If it's a GUI system there should
be buttons and checkboxes to get things done.

To some extent the poor design problems are due
to chauvinism: Linux greasemonkey geeks resent
anyone using Linux in civilian mode, without getting
their hands dirty. To some extent it's calculated
obfuscation: Microsoft hides settings in the Registry,
or provides only commandline, so that only IT
people will know and use those settings. That's
done mainly to serve corporate customers and/or
to reduce tech support calls by reducing options and
functionality.

There are cases where that's appropriate, particularly
to provide an OS to corporations that will be used by
employees, where functionality needs to be circumscribed.
But when an average person trying to use their computer
can't do a simple thing like removing file restrictions on
their own files with a simple button click, that system is
broken. You might say, "Hey, if you used console you
could just type a couple of takeown and cacls commands.
With console there's power". That's absurd. It shouldn't be
necessary. No one should ever have to even know about
crap obfuscation tricks like takeown and cacls in order to
use their computer as they want to, any more than they
should have to do an oil change before driving to the beach
or to work.

Having started with Windows I expect control (unlike with
Macs). I also expect flexibility and polish (unlike with Linux).
If there's no button I'll write a GUI script or software to
provide that button. Or someone else will. There's a great
example of that with takeown and cacls. Someone wrote
a clever little ditty to put them both on the context menu
as a one-click restriction-clearing convenience. That's
classic Windows logic: Let's make this functional so we can
get back to work, or go to the beach.... But good luck with
your valve job this Sunday. I'll wave when I drive by on my
way to the beach.

On 07/24/16 11:08, Mayayana so wittily quipped:
| I think if you gave it a try, UNIX-style shell scripting might appeal to
| you.
|

I have, and it doesn't. I consider it to be the
biggest problem with Linux. I shouldn't need to
type at commandline to accomplish *anything*.

why not? _I_ type fast. It's faster to type the command than to move
my right hand off of home row and mousie-clickie everything. I even
wrote a really cool command line interpreter for windows back in the 3.0
days, and it had some extensions that were very useful for getting
system info, etc.. The WinREXX guy asked me to integrate my stuff with
his, even [and I did]. Micro-Shaft actually incorporated some of my
ideas into CMD which I thought was interesting. Eventually I discovered
the UNIX-style command shells, and from there it was obvious: THAT was
the right direction. The 'simple yet elegant' philosophy of "lots of
little tools that do single functions" made available in way you could
chain them together [something CMD and its predecessor don't do very
well], has SUCH potential, that it's lasted THIS LONG without a lot of
change...

[side note, 'change for the sake of change' - so typical of Micro-shaft
these days... they've been listening to their own MSNBC-style bull****
for too long I guess - I stick with what works for productivity and
reliability reasons, instead of chasing a mayfly]


What you're describing is low-level technical stuff.
Most people don't need to do such things.

and WHO determines what others *need* ???


If I need to do something like that I'll write software with
buttons on it, so I won't have to open a console window.

your choice. have fun writing "the Metro" [CR]apps(sic)

I do a great deal with VBScript through the Windows
Script Host.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (ok I'll stop now)

I used WSH when it was *INVENTED* back in the 90's. It has its use, for
sure, but its REAL value is limited. It's also a malware/virus entry
vector.


There's a reason why we have the GUI and mouse. It's
easier to drag/drop a file than it is to type in its path.

not always. I don't like removing my hand from the keyboard to move the
mouse "all the ****ing time". It's why I *DESPISE* what Micro-shaft did
to the Visual Studio interface. Instead of having a nice
typist-friendly class wizard with tabbed dialogs, they went to that
"property" window, which *REQUIRES* mousie, clickie, mousie, clickie and
GETS!!! IN!!! THE!!! WAY!!! OF!!! MY!!! PRODUCTIVITY!!!!!


In my experience, the people who love console are usually
the oldtimers

_AGE_ _DISCRIMINATION_!!! [ha ha ha ha ha]

have you EVER considered that *MAYBE* old people have experience and
knowledge that YOU do NOT have? MAYBE us oldsters are *RIGHT*?


who just never got used to using a mouse and GUI buttons.

yeah, we old farts just can't learn anything *NEW* can we? A bunch of
NEANDERTHALS ready to be SELECTED OUT of the gene pool by you youngun's
who know *SO* much and are *SO* much better with your mousie-clickie
**** (not to mention the 2D FLUGLY "modern" "the Metro" approach).


Or, they're youngsters who are enamored
of the "secret decoder ring" atmosphere around typing arcane,
terse commands into a window. It seems powerful, like a
witch's incantation that no one else can understand.

you seriously believe that? I'd like to say it's MORE like the
re-discovery of 70's hard rock bands like Aerosmith, finding dad's (or
grandpa's) old vinyl collection and saying "whoah, THIS stuff is
AWESOME!" Then of course dad/grandpa goes up in 'coolness' by a few
notches as a result.

So we get some young hackers, *TIRED* of doing things the way "the
masses" are being told, and THEY discover the *REALLY* *COOL* ******.
It helps that it's available in OSX. It also helps that it's available
for FREE for Windows (Cygwin). It's like "once you go BASH you never go
back." heh.


I'm assuming your bash script is not GUI-integrated; that you can't just
drop a file onto your saved script file and have it do a job.

why would I want to do THAT ? If I create custom hardware, why do I
need a $200 LCD display (for a full GUI) when a $5 will do?

you've also never heard of THIS, have you?

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?...lt&format=html

FYI, I _ALSO_ built two OTHER device programmers [a much simpler design]
by purchasing two Linux notebooks for $100 or so each, then installing a
version of Debian Linux that had the correct bluetooth tools so that I
could use them for troubleshooting bluetooth connectivity for one
device, and *ALSO* its main purpose, programming a 2nd device using a
USB programming device and a miniature 'bed of nails' with a clamp. The
GUI interface was a single icon in the middle of the desktop -
double-click to run. It ran a SHELL SCRIPT, naturally.

the point of doing this: minimize cost, maximize productivity, make it
easy for production techs, who are NOT idiots, to do their jobs as
rapidly and effectively as possible.

If that means a 2-line LCD display that costs $5, mounted on a custom
circuit board with 3 pushbuttons and pogo pins sticking out of it [and a
couple of clamps], driven by a Raspberry Pi, that's what you do. The
overall cost for things like that usually exceeds $10k. I did it for a
fraction of that, and made it possible to upgrade the thing easily
[because it uses bash shell scripts].

Or, I could have just as easily used a linux notebook computer with a
Mate desktop for the same purpose [but it would require a more difficult
hardware interface to the computer]. It would have cost more, in other
words.

and to a business, COST and PRODUCTIVITY matter. To an idealist, they
do NOT.


For instance, I process my website server logs each day,
dropping the raw log file onto a VBScript, which then uses
COM objects to convert the IPs to hostnames and find their
geo-location.

/me thinking "one line 'awk' filter" now. you could use 'nc' or 'curl'
to get the geo location stuff from google's APIs. THEN it would work
ANYWHERE on ANY machine [that has bash or cygwin], not just a winders
box running Intarweb Exploiter and WSH's VBScript [a Micro-shaft only lingo]


Microsoft came out with Windows Script Host in 1998, as an
update from DOS batch files for the age of GUI.

and created a BRAND! NEW! VECTOR! for viruses and other malware. Oh, I
said that already, didn't I?


It allows for command line but also allows for highly complex
programming that takes advantage of the Windows GUI

see 'Xdialog' man page, above


snipping the rest, a bit TLDR and I think I made my point. Thanks for
confirming my suspicions about your general ignorance and Micro-shaft
fanboi-ism, regarding the command line and bash shell scripting.


What you failed to realize is that I'm intimately familiar with all
versions of windows since 3.0, as well as things like windows scripting
host, etc. which all HAD their place in a way, along with their serious
disadvantages. But they are NO substitute for the raw power and
flexibility of the UNIX-style command line, even if they PRETEND to be.