A Guided Tour of the Microsoft Command Shell

jpkunst writes "Ryan Paul at Ars Technica provides an in-depth, 13 page review of the new Microsoft Command Shell (Monad). (The beta release can be downloaded for free from Microsoft.) From the conclusion: 'Despite my initial skepticism, I am deeply impressed with MSH technology, and I am legitimately excited about the future of the Windows command line.'"

Re:The true meaning of "msh"

Everyone knows that "msh" really stands for "Microsoft Hell".

And once people realize it is crippled there will be a gsh (Gate Shell) and a bsh (Ballmer Shell) as equally handycaped as the msh. A legal suit will follow from Google for gsh but the bsh will last.

Wouldn't it be easier just to get a copy of Linux and call it MS-Linux? I thought Microsoft thought all of UNIX/POSIX was crap and you didn't need a shell?

Re:The true meaning of "msh"

so shouldn't the command prompt for msh be something like this?

$>

or maybe a few more...

$$$>

ah, what the heck...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$>

Re:The true meaning of "msh"

And once people realize it is crippled there will be a gsh (Gate Shell) and a bsh (Ballmer Shell) as equally handycaped as the msh. A legal suit will follow from Google for gsh but the bsh will last.

bsh> developers
developers

bsh> developers
developers

bsh> developers
YEAH!

Re:The true meaning of "msh"

What about mash (Microsoft Again SHell) for when windows is broken and needs major emergency repair.

Who wrote the introduction?

The "robust commercial applications and standard graphical utilities" are, indeed, in much need of reinvention. Oops.

And what's with the "unleash" keyword? Do these people really think in terms, that glossy ads use to compare the advertised products with animals?

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

Are you talking about the new Vista UI?

In that case, that's a visual style that's changing only the aspects of the UI Windows XP changed. Windows border styles and new flashy button hover effects, etc. Think of it as a different theme/skin, not a way for them to change the UI design guidelines. "OK" will still always be followed by "Cancel", group boxes will still group UI elements with a relation, menus will still be part of the applications and not the dsektop, combo boxes will still be recommended only in "little space" situations, and so on. :-)

Actually, Microsoft has released preliminary design guidelines for Vista [microsoft.com], and I was surprised to see how much can be directly applied, and is even recommended to be applied like that, to Windows XP.

Also, even in Windows Vista, just like in XP, can you still apply the Windows 2000 look & feel via a flip of a switch. That if anything should show that all they're really doing are mostly just applying new skins to sell their product, and not coming up with new guidelines that indeed would alienate their broad customer base. If I'm at some user that have applied some simple settings, I often lose myself in thinking I'm working on a Windows 2000 workstation when I'm in reality on XP.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

There's far more of a difference between Windows XP and Windows 2000, then just a graphical skin. The methods for accessing a handful of configuration settings windows has altered and in some cases, those configuration modules have changed significantly on their own.

    To say that there won't be changes beyond simple "Graphical skins" simply does not hold with the historical perspective of the sweeping changes with each major iteration of Windows.

    Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to WindowsMe, there were underlying configuration changes that made learning the "new" OS important.

    Windows NT 3.5 to Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP also included significant configuration setting alterations that were far more drastic then the "Consumer Level" Windows Operating Systems.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

I've studied the new UI quite a bit, and you, sir, are clueless.

Are they keeping things like "OK" and "Cancel? Yes. Are you able to change the look back to Windows 2000 (well, sort of). Yes. They do things like this so people don't need to totally retrain.

Is the user interface anything like Windows XP, under the hood? No. God no.

The entire thing has been rewritten from the ground up. Everything is a .NET object, everything inherits from another object. The entire thing is texture based, like OS X.

What this means is they CAN make drastic changes down the road by simply changing a few objects. Everything will inherit down. Ever notice that buttons can be totally dissimilar from one app to the next, and all MS has been able to do is (for example) but a blue highlight around them? That's because the UI has been so cripped.

The new UI is simple, beautiful and brilliant. Is it completely different than Windows XP? No. It's not intended to be. The goal, like .NET, is to have a framework to build off for the future. Like .NET, too, the new UI is well-written. I've been programming for it for half a year now and it blows Windows XP out of the water. It even tops OS X in a few areas.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

Okay, I don't normally latch onto so such an advert piece of flamebait, but this one I couldn't pass on...

And so can all the malware, spyware, crippleware, middleware, trojans, worms, viruses, and anyone with even a mild desire to make life difficult for people around them.

Do you know what the definition of "malware" [reference.com] is? Any code can be malware. If you sent someone a shell script to shutdown their system and they think its a link to their favorite pr0n site, guess what? Its malware!

Registry + ActiveX + a functional shell (finally) + .NET == cataclysmic user-base catastrophe waiting to happen

Then by using your logic, so is giving someone the keys to a car.... The registry is a centralized database of configuration settings for the OS and applications. Its no different than having 5000 configuration files scattered through a system, other than of course that its in a centralized database. IMNSHO the *nixes can benefit from this concept. Yes, there are limitations, and there should be better security within it, but nothing is stopping someone from hacking Httpd.conf either.

Active-X is a development platform. It can be exploited just like anything else, people create java based virii all the time, the problem is users are dumb enough to just hit "yes install this crap on my system".

.NET is once again a programming API. It's nothing *NEW* its just a uniform model that Microsoft is developing to. Yes, it makes things easier for developers. Yes, this means that instead of the script kiddies having to decipher the Win32API docs, they can use the more developer friendly access methods. But as I said before, any "code" in any language on any platform can be "exploited".

Here's a nice quote for you:
'We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them.' -- Titus Livius

Now, yes, these things make it *EASIER* for people to take advantage of. However, they were always there, they're there on any platform, its just whether or not people take advantage of them in malice. The better question is "What's MS actually doing to MITIGATE these problems?" Well, I think they finally took a page from the *nix (linux/unix) world and implemented this "revolutionary" feature with Vista: User Account Protection [microsoft.com] What the hell is that you ask? Well, in simplest terms, its sudo. When UAP is enabled, any action you take that requires "administrator" access, will now prompt you for credentials to do so, even if you are an administrator. Yeap, you guessed it, even admins are no longer admins. What's that do to applications? Well, thats for the developers to fix! But it "fixes" one of the most blatant issues most people had with Windows security: that their grandmother had to be an administrator on her home PC to use her copy of Quicken, and because of that, she also had 5kajillian pieces of spyware installed.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

Please come into the new millenium. If the registry gets corrupted due to a filesystem problem or a piece of malware you don't have to use it. You can either use a backup copy which Windows automatically generates for you or use a failsafe registry which will for all intents and purposes always get you back into Windows.

This is the first time I've ever seen someone refer to a database as a single point of failure.

Always good to see new things.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

The registry isn't exactly new ... Windows 3.1 had one, I believe. But it was a stupid idea from the start. I understand that Vista is going to be putting more "protections" in place to reduce registry abuse, but nevertheless like Windows File Protection it's just a hack on top of a hack.

The only legitimate (and I'm using the term loosely) function that the Registry performs is to make it virtually impossible to move a major application from one machine to another without running the actual installation program. In effect, it's an intrinsic anti-piracy technique. Sometimes I think that's the only reason that it's still there.

Re:Who wrote the introduction?

The colors may have changed but the patterns are the same. The start button is at the bottom left hand corner. The taskbar spans the entire bottom of the screen. The three buttons on the upper right of any window are minimize, toggle fullscreen/windowed, and exit, respectively, in that order.

That is what uniformity is. Changing colors / visual schema is not uniformity. That's like saying a green car is not uniform to a blue car. You can still drive it with the knowlege you learned in drivers ed.

-everphilski-

Quick! Open Source Monkeys Fly

We must have a working implimentation of this shell in Gnome immediately.

I propose we call it Gonad.
It will be the dogs bollocks.

Re:Better name: Gonuts

I thought a Monad was when you lost one of your gonads. Or was that mononad.

Re:Quick! Open Source Monkeys Fly

While you are trying to be funny, you are correct,
unix does need a shell like monad I'm afraid (hence ac)

What monad will offer is something like

>ls -l | head -n 10 | sort size | excel

They are piping objects, we would need to do a lot of parsing to achief the same effect.

Someone really needs to write a new shell for unix and abstract the unix system, by giving it knowledge of the common unix tools (parsing the output for the user), like ps, ls, sed, etc.

Want to be famous ?
Here is your idea.

Re:Quick! Open Source Monkeys Fly

What monad will offer is something like

>ls -l | head -n 10 | sort size | excel

They are piping objects, we would need to do a lot of parsing to achief the same effect.

Just do : ls -l | sort | head -10 | tr -s " " "\t" > dir.txt; gnumeric dir.txt & After all, if you're going to be manipulating it in a spreadsheet, you probably want to save it in a file somewhere anyway, right?

impressive

Indeed, that MSH demo is impressive and all, but python is great too. System-wide integration? Big fucking deal:
>>> import kudzu
>>> kudzu.probe(kudzu.CLASS_HD, kudzu.BUS_IDE, kudzu.PROBE_ALL)
[Desc: MAXTOR 6L040J2 Driver: ignore
Device: hda , Desc: ST360021A
Driver: ignore Device: hdc
, Desc: Maxtor 6Y120P0 Driver: ignore
Device: hde ]

etc, and python is easily expandible to cover ALL the system. What makes MSH rock is that it's a python-like programming languaje PLUS a user-oriented (user=administrator) shell like bash. In linux we're used to program scripts with python, then pass the data through pipes to bash to do something with it. Crappy. When you have to do things like "command | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | cut -d ':' -f 1" to get some data, you know something is WRONG.

The cool thing about MSH that its a SUBSTITUTE to bash/cmd.exe, not a "complement" like python is. Is not that bash or python are bad, but bash-like shells are 30-years-old unchanged technology. Fortunately, there're people writing user-oriented python-based shells, like http://ipython.scipy.org/ [scipy.org]

Re:impressive

When you have to do things like "command | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | cut -d ':' -f 1" to get some data, you know something is WRONG.

Agreed. In this case it's the coder, who should really have enough nous to print the data in the format in which he intends to use it. That's hardly rocket science, is it?

Of course, if you didn't write the python script and don't have the time and/or skill to hack it, you might nd up using cut and the like to get the data in the format you need. The cool think about that is that it's possible. I don't know if the same can be said under MSH, but it seems unlikely - the focus of Monad seems to be .NET integration, not a stream based filtering command line environment.

Then again, maybe you didn't even write the wrapper script and don't understand anything. If so you can always troll slashdot as an AC and get some astroturfing in.

Re:impressive

I'm reading the article and, you know, I'm just not seeing anything in here but a horribly tortured object oriented syntax and a reexpression of MS' nightmarish implementation of the common "--help". I did, however, find this admonishment:

One of the major frustrations of MSH is the lack of support for piped input in other Windows applications. I can't pipe my HTML content into a new instance of Internet Explorer and I can't pipe my CSV content directly into a new instance of Excel.

Considering the decades of command line functionality which sh type shells have, apparently MSH is only dreaming of what BASH can do.

Followed closely by:

I sincerely hope that the final release of MSH features an entire collection of convert and export commands for a broader variety of formats. Sources inside Microsoft tell us that MSH users will probably use COM and ActiveX to interface with major Windows applications.

It's a security nightmare waiting to happen. If people think BASH viruses are a potential problem then imagine the full horrors of ActiveX with access to a system shell. At least Mozilla exploits don't lead to "rm -rf /" or malware stuffed all over the system.

Re:impressive

"I'm just not seeing anything in here but a horribly tortured object oriented syntax and a reexpression of MS' nightmarish implementation of the common "--help"."

The object oriented stuff provides extra features. You can still alias all the old stuff to the usual commands, and it apparently does so by default.

"Considering the decades of command line functionality which sh type shells have, apparently MSH is only dreaming of what BASH can do."

Please explain again how you think it's the shell's fault that other applications don't support its features. Oh and btw, `echo 'html-stuff' | firefox` results in a blank browser window.

An open source clone?

Has any project been started to provide an open source clone, similar to what the Mono Project has done with .NET?

Re:An open source clone?

There are already quite a few shells in unix that follow a similar paradigm. Python's default shell comes pretty close, but there are off shoots of it that provide functionality designed to be used as a command shell. MSH is pretty much an interactive ruby shell or python shell designed to run regular commands and treat files like objects (which is as simple as defining a class that can interpret the file information and give it methods like .get_extension) The real key here is that I belive everything is treated as an object. With minor modifications to the python shell and maybe an additional class or two you would have the exact same functionality. You see... there is a reason though that noone has done this. System administrators should not have to learn the concepts of object orientation just to do their job. They are not programmers. Its bad enough when programmers design GUIs because they cater to programmers and not typical users. Monad caters to programmers and not system administrators. Most unix sys admin I know do know how to script in something like perl or python, but most windows admin are point and click or they can type a few commands into a file and rename it to .bat to run it. The monad shell has some great ideas for a shell used by and for programmers, but honestly it isn't a sys admins job to understand programming or programming paradigms. Let admins use simple bash like commands, even if it may not be the cleanest way, conceptually it is often easier, and let programmers script their way out of any hole they want.
Regards,
Steve

Some Wise Man Said

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.<br>
-- Henry Spencer<br>
Usenet signature, November 1987

Another Wise Man Said...

A witty saying proves nothing.
- Voltaire

And so did another

Neither does one that is said by Voltaire.
-Suso

Re:And so did another

Thus proving Voltaire's saying is correct?

Google Shell

The new google shell: Gonad

It's nuts

New website.....

Backslashdot

Specializing in Unix bashing (somewhat of an ironic statement)

Jeez...

the text-based shell is the nexus of computational control and the point at which proper articulation of will can transform commands into consequences Which leads to two questions : who wrote this shit, and were they getting paid per syllable?

Re:Jeez...

Which leads to two questions : who wrote this shit, and were they getting paid per syllable?

It was the same person that wrote the dialogue for research breakthroughs in Alpha Centauri.

the text-based shell is the nexus of computational control and the point at which proper articulation of will can transform commands into consequences
- Col. Corazon Santiago Spartan Programmer's Manual

Re:Jeez...

Ah come on those things were great.

My favorite.

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled.
But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any
particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in
a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events
of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose
meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
^
^ -- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
^ Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
^ TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

On The Pipe

It's worth mentioning here that the real strength of the pipe is not "what you can pipe", but "what you can pipe things from, and to", and the fact that you can daisy-chain them together as far as you like. There are literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of little tools and widgets that you can pipe information into and out of to achieve various effects. Regardless of what new things the MSH pipe can do, the unix world has a significantly larger toolbox.

Re:On The Pipe

Very true. I think this system could work well though, despite not having used it, but I guess I'll have to give it a go to really know. Kinda worried about the noted limitations of its tab-completion though — that's one feature that I'd, at the very least, find difficult to let go.

As for more arbitrary pipes, there is some degree of good news in the discussion thread which goes along with the article, in particular this little gem:

You can essentially make an alias in MSH that associates a short name with the full path of one of the Cygwin command line apps. It's nice being able to occasionally use awk, sed and grep from the MSH command line.

msh> new-alias grep "C:\Cygwin\bin\grep.exe"
msh> get-childitem | grep blah

I'm not sure how far this aliasing can be taken, it's possible it only works on text rather than bitstreams, but it's encouraging that the *nix command line apps can be aliased and seem to "play nice" with the MSH system.

A shell is nice but...

A shell is nice but, can you change all the settings from the command line? The fact that most of your settings are stored in the registry, makes things a lot harder to do from the command line. Sure you could probably change a key or two if you needed to. But you'd probably have to know the exact location. Browsing the settings, to find the key you want, would be a lot harder. Can you install most programs from the command line, and manage all your installed software from the command line. I like the fact that in Linux, most base system stuff is designed so that it can be done by the command line, first and foremost, I like the fact that Linux stores all the settings in text files. This means that you can change the setting with any text editor of your choice. Also, there is a huge library of tools available at the command line. Not just stuff that was thought up by the people who made your command line (bash, csh, zsh), but also anybody else who made just about any other utility.

Re:A shell is nice but...

Yes, you can. you can change registry settings from the command line. Yes, you have to know the exact location, but that's like saying 'you have to know how to use a computer to use a computer'.
Yes you can install ALL programs from the command line... expecially the ones designed to use the standard windows installer (.MSI). It has some powerful commandline options, which are universal across all apps that use it. Search for msiexec.exe
You can do everything and anything from the command line. WSH/WMI add a great deal more functionality as well, and you can still keep it at the command line.

Re:A shell is nice but...

If you had read the article you would have discovered that MSH includes a managed virtualfilesystem-like provider for the registry that allows you to navigate the registry and read/write settings.

Re:A shell is nice but...

If you had read the article you would have discovered that MSH includes a managed virtualfilesystem-like provider for the registry that allows you to navigate the registry and read/write settings.

HA!! It took over 10 years, but finally they're coming around. May I propose a name for that "managed virtualfilesystem-like provider":

/etc