To be honest, I don't consider this to be that bad, I was just replying to a person who thought that bash was "simple", and powershell was "complex". Also, I don't have a problem with either tool. I'm very open to the idea that Microsoft can and does create awesome tech, despite having other shitty products.
You guys are just proving my point. _I_ already know how to do it using bash. Its just that using objects and querying properties is far simpler. And I just took a random example because its a common thing that someone would want to do.
You really couldn't have asked for a better chain to demonstrate the validity of your point. Having been blinded by my own world view and biases in the past I sympathize with them but this is too funny not to have a little laugh at their expense.
I think what others might be demonstrated is that there isn't a reliance on what object Microsoft decides to ship to you, in *nix we can combine commands and builtins and get the information in the structure we need without having to wait 8 months for a system reboot (or worse a paid for upgrade) that will give us what we need.
Well, to be fair, what was demonstrated here was that people didn't actually extract the data after multiple edits and tries, regardless of what tools they had at their disposal.
I think the idea of an object pipeline is sound for precisely this reason, but I don't think it should be connected to any one language or platform.
First of all you are incorrect in your assumptions. You are reliant on the author of the tool in both cases. Just as there is no "UNIX Person" who decrees that all executables on UNIX must output text, there are vendors other than Microsoft who write software for Windows. You can write one too, it takes about 5 minutes to expose a powershell interface. And I'm not even a .NET developer. I write embedded software for a living.
It is parsing text, but that text does have some consistent structure. Contained within it are properties. One can make the same comment of reading JSON or XML but I'll admit those are more like what you'd choose for an API. In general there is a not-entirely-obvious (to me) question of where does "formatted for machines" end, and "formatted for humans" begin? We can't say "it's for machines if and only if it must conform a schema that's defined in advance", not any more.
I prefer a great deal plastic to environmental foe aluminium. To me their use of aluminium is a very good reason not to buy Apple hardware. I have a Dell M3800 right now, and the build quality is very good. Thin, light, excellent 4K touch screen, good battery life, I easily added a second HDD to it. Not to mention that every thing works perfectly well under Linux.
>And honestly, Ubuntu is a terrible example for the Linux Desktop.
Funny. I just find the opposite: Ubuntu is a superb desktop, polished, clean and powerful, very productive and easy to use for the experienced use with keyyboard shortcuts, but also to new users with mouse and no prior knowledge.
Have you used recent versions of KDE (on openSUSE, for example) or GNOME (on Fedora)? Because Ubuntu (or Unity, to be more precise) did not really change since 12.04 and largerly used GNOME applications anyway. The things you actually can attribute to Ubuntu, for example the Software Center, are an absolute trainwreck in comparison to the "competitors" (GNOME Software e.g. is moving fast and is capable of staging upgrades to the next OS release as of recent).
Canonical should have made it clear that when the E4.5 was available last year, it was intended to early adopters / dev / enthusiasts only. But my guess is that it was probably awkward to present it that way to BQ.
Anyway, being a long time Linux enthusiast and running Ubuntu as my main OS for many years, I bought the E4.5 to support the project and was not expecting an experience which would match Android.
Having said that, it has improved so much and I would venture to say that as of 2016, it is starting to be ready for general public.
It is my main phone, and everything pretty much works, the UX is great. The main annoyance is that it is a bit slow: starting an app takes a few seconds. But might be due to the not too potent hardware of a E4.5.
Ubuntu phone seems the only alternative we have to the smartphone OS duopoly and to feel and be in control of the device in our pocket. That is priceless to me.
Linux enthusiast here. Had a BQ E4.5 Ubuntu edition since April 2015 and I am pretty pleased with it. I love the UX.
It has come a long way already: the off the air (OTA) upgrades roughly every month make it better and better. It is more than usable. If not having Skype, WhatsApp etc.. is not a show stopper for you, then it can be a great phone for you. There are already many apps, but of course not comparable to Android. Can see an official app viewer here: https://uappexplorer.com/
Also the dev tools for it are great. The Ubuntu SDK, based on QtCreator is pretty slick. It is quite easy to write a native app. There are many guidelines and good docs for it: https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/
To use the appstore you need an Ubuntu One account. Basically, so it can customise the experience (ie reload your apps onto a new phone) to you and lets you buy commercial applications. Most end-users want convenience and customised experiences are a good way to go. If you absolutely require privacy then using a temporary email would be a way around it.
