this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
436 points (83.9% liked)

Unixporn

15421 readers
1 users here now

Unixporn

Submit screenshots of all your *NIX desktops, themes, and nifty configurations, or submit anything else that will make themers happy. Maybe a server running on an Amiga, or a Thinkpad signed by Bjarne Stroustrup? Show the world how pretty your computer can be!

Rules

  1. Post On-Topic
  2. No Defaults
  3. Busy Screenshots
  4. Use High-Quality Images
  5. Include a Details Comment
  6. No NSFW
  7. No Racism or use of racist terms

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't Powershell a POSIX compliant shell now? I know that isn't "gnu/linux" but it certainly allows a lot of familiarity between the environments.

[–] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it's strictly compliant, although they claim to have based it's syntax on Korn shell, which is the strictest definition of POSIX shells.

You can do pretty much everything in powershell that you can do in something like bash BUT, it will be done slightly differently, so trying to make a script cross compatible is pointless (you might as well just write it natively in powershell etc).

Powershell isn't inherently bad, unlike bash for instance which just allows piping out text output, Powershell can pass around true .net objects.
But if what you're looking for is cross OS compatability, you're pushing shit uphill.

99.9% of the time, I open powershell and just ssh into a "real" linux box.

[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lol except they aliased wget and curl but dont parse the standard options 😡

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's borderline criminal. Nothing more to add

[–] PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

powershell is inherently bad btw

[–] SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your quote cannot be read because reading is disabled on this system. For more information, see about_Execution_Policies at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=135170.

Do your complaint is that the default security policy, that is easily changed with one command, is conservatively set?

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How can it be? It's oo. Not saying you're wrong. Honestly curious

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, this explains:

The Windows NT POSIX subsystem did not provide the interactive user environment parts

So the interactive part, the shell itself, is not compliant. That is why I was confused

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am not a greybeard expert with deep bash history, but I though the posix compliant aspect of PowerShell was a very recent, though apparently not perfect, achievement even if "technically" NT was POSIX compliant by some specific definition in 1993.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As far as I understand, these are posix requirements https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18

Powershell is not compliant with that document even now in the interactive part. Wsl2 is, as one can istall a standard Linux shell

[–] PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

bruh

That was Windows NT and was done for C builds so that Microsoft could compete for US government contracts