begin risky.vbs
<66M6h.688$Dj.141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
yttrx@xxxxxxxxx (yttrx) writes:
> Roy Culley <rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Its a CLI shell for goodness sake. It doesn't need to be the be all
>> and end all of shells before its initial release. How long did it take
>> Korn to write the initial Korn shell? Bourne sh? Joy csh? They could
>> do it because the OS made it relatively simple to do so.
>>
>> In my opinion the problem is that the CLI shell is a fundamental part
>> of *nix since the get go. Not so with Windows. Pipes are the glue that
>> made shells so powerful IMHO. It was relatively easy to add a GUI to
>> *nix. Windows, being designed as a GUI OS has clearly made it
>> extremely difficult to provide a CLI interface anywhere near what all
>> *nix's offer.
>>
>> MS realise that a decent CLI shell is necessary. Delivering one is
>> obviously a huge task. Where is MS's Korn / Bourne / Joy?
>>
>> At the end of the day Windows will still be insecure by design. A
>> powerful CLI shell would scare me if I ran Windows. Probably best for
>> MS if it doesn't see the light of day.
>
> The problem is that "monad" isn't really a
> programming/scripting/command shell--it's an interface to the .NET
> framework--and thats ALL it is.
>
> It'd be much more meaningful to compare it to something like the
> Python interactive >> interface than to compare it to something like
> ksh.
OK, also like tcl/tk and perl then. Now how many people did the
original development of those? With tcl/tk we've had the ability to
develop scripts with a GUI interface for years. I've mentioned before
on COLA that I use exmh as my MUA. It is butt ugly but does everything
I need better than any other MUA I've tried over the years.
As a language I hate tcl but it gave birth to expect many many years
ago. What a wonderful admin tool expect was / is. The expect author's
book, exploring expect, is also the best book for learning tcl IMHO.
Ain't Windows scripting so sadly lacking. *nix was there decades
ago. :-)
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
