The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

[Dread First]

@Slav Power @Overly Serious cheers for the tips m8s; genuinely excellent stuff to read through. I know NT's different from DOS, but this gives me the impetus to fire up DOSBox and fiddle with all the vidya I see niggas like LGR. Nostalgia Nerd, and The 8-Bit Guy playing like Commander Keen and Avoid the Noid. Seriously, thanks guys! Anywho... back on topic about Linux shit I wanna whinge about.

***

Long ago in the pre-COVID before times, during the pre-Trump halcyon days of "progress," I ordered a manky, nondescript portable Blu-ray/DVD-RW drive off Amazon. I was delusional enough to think that something like libdvdcss existed for BDs in 2014 when I bought the damn thing. Turns out, no there isn't, and that's why Blu-ray on PCs never took off. I had to do some bonehurt stream-to-VLC shenanigans to watch my Clannad After Story and Batman TDKR Blu-ray discs. On the flip side? Played all my DVDs just fine. After a while, I got sick of the MakeMKV song-and-dance to get my BDs to work and I needed the desk space and the USB ports back. Shoved it in a drawer and basically forgot about it for about 11-12 years until I started fiddling with Fedora again with F43's release a couple of weeks ago. Did the RPM Fusion multimedia routine, as one typically does with Fedora, and I realised that I have libdvdcss installed! Dug out this manky piece of junk from the bottom of my desk drawer, and it surprisingly works! There's just one teeny tiny but actually pretty fucking major problem here: optical media playback on GNOME is fucking dogshit. Oh and assorted whinging about the sordid state of Linux usability more broadly.

I've lost my faith in the GNOME and KDE Plasma teams to make a coherent desktop environment that prioritises functionality, ergonomics, and general fucking common sense a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, both teams are equally incompetent in $current_year, and it just so happens that as of November 2025, Fedora KDE is abject rubbish because the newest KDE Plasma dropped and it seems like Plasma 6 is cursed to completely fucking shit itself whenever a new update drops. Plasma under Wayland is unbearably slow, my mouse catches on the fucking side of my left monitor for a split second whenever I move it between monitors, and there's general unresponsiveness when opening/closing applications. Since I'm a bloody masochist with the "fiddle with my computers even if I hate myself doing it" kinda autism, I chose to migrate from Fedora KDE to Fedora Workstation. Surprisingly, GNOME Shell under Wayland is much more usable in F43 than it was under F42 back in May. Obviously, sticking with a Fedora spin that relies on X11 like Cinnamon, MATE, or Xfce is the correct solution, but I'm trying to challenge my biases.

All my emulators seemingly work from PPSSPP, DuckStation, Azahar, PCSX2, and so on, no frame dips or stuttering or input lag under Wayland that I could make out, the progress with Steam games under Wayland is genuinely impressive because I'm able to play stuff like Hollow Knight, Dark Souls PTDE, even Deus Ex GOTY without anything seemingly amiss, my mouse doesn't fucking hang when switching between monitors, and what's more? Most of the artefacting I saw in GNOME Shell under F42 disappeared as of F43. X11 is still fundamentally superior in terms of literal "just works" functionality, but hey: I can actually tolerate using this rubbish now unlike back in May under F42 when it was almost tolerable but the artefacting was too much for me to put up with. Having all the GStreamer shit from RPM Fusion means my local movies and TV shows on my internal hard disk work perfectly, DNF doesn't feel as "fast" as APT does on Mint, but it gets the job done and I appreciate the meaningful install feedback instead of "UNPACKING $such_and_such... followed by INSTALLING... and then finishing on "done" with nothing more. No, this dingus tells me when I need to run systemctl daemon-reload if CUPS updates.

UNFORTUNATELY, that's where my praise has to fucking end because Totem, the Ol' Reliable of GTK-based media players, got rebranded into GNOME Videos, and fucking lost the goddamn ability to play DVDs. What the shit?! I get that optical media is dying out and hardly anyone ever plays a DVD off their computers anymore, but even then, what kind of fucking technical debt do you even accumulate by keeping the "Open Disc" functionality? I had to resort to fucking VLC just to test if this manky BD/DVD-RW drive even works, thankfully it does and VLC DVD playback works just as well as I remember it, but I ain't tryna look at that ugly ass UI skin and I'm too lazy to look for a good one. Celluloid on Linux Mint worked a charm, installed it, and thank GOD the developers of Celluloid didn't kill DVD playback when rebranding from GNOME MPV (formerly GNOME MPlayer).

Even worse, the UI for GNOME Videos is fucking ugly as sin. Totem wasn't anything to write home about, but at least it was pretty to look at as far as utilitarian media players go, but GNOME Videos is hideously transparent when any media file is playing. Does it handle dual subs without audio delays? Yes, does a better job than VLC in that respect. Is it really fucking annoying when my hand brushes against my mouse, it moves over to the video playback screen, and I see hideously contrasted playback controls against a transparent background? Also yes. Celluloid is a stark contrast because it's ostensibly different from GNOME MPlayer, even Totem, but at least the UI stays out of the goddamn way and I have the ability to utilise the assorted keyboard shortcuts that MPV clients generally ship with.

I'm able to watch my weebshit just fine, I'll need to properly sit down and look up whether or not the state of BD playback on Linux evolved past MakeMKV streams to VLC, I don't really have anything groundbreaking or even remotely interesting to whinge about. I'm honestly just whinging for its own sake at this point, but regardless, why the fuck are regressions in general functionality so fucking commonplace in Linux nowadays? This is shit I was more than able to do on Ubuntu 12.04 on a shitty Dell Outlet PC tower back in 2014 without anywhere near the same level of bullshit that we have now. Apparently, enshittification happens on Linux too and it'll fucking happen with or without a normie exodus from Windows to Linux because of SteamOS.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

The primary problem with linux is that no open source dev finishes their work - they always switch to shiny new thing which is understandable as actually finishing something is 99% of the effort for 1% of reward. Due to that linux and infact any non company driven large scale system will always have constant regressions when it comes to functionality as old projects will get abandoned for new things with all the effort put into making the old thing work for edge cases that were revelant at that time wasted with only few exceptions.

 

[Slav Power]

The primary problem with linux is that no open source dev finishes their work - they always switch to shiny new thing which is understandable as actually finishing something is 99% of the effort for 1% of reward. Due to that linux and infact any non company driven large scale system will always have constant regressions when it comes to functionality as old projects will get abandoned for new things with all the effort put into making the old thing work for edge cases that were revelant at that time wasted with only few exceptions.

That, and more often than not they treat it as a power trip where they're the big guy in charge that bosses around everyone and decides what to do or not what to do. They don't have the proverbial gun to the head in form of being employed by a software company where writing good software is their job, and if they don't do that they lose their monthly income needed to keep a roof over their heads, so they couldn't give two shits about writing good software which is the entire point of FOSS being FOSS.

Case in point:

 

[Overly Serious]

I would say that I'm experiencing some Fight Club style dual-personality thing and writing posts in my sleep, except that @code123 wrote the points better than I would have. That .BAT script equivalent cracked me up.

Either way, I see my writing an epic post on this in the Windows thread has failed to shift the discussion there so I'll reply here like everyone else. I'll keep it short though.

(@Dread First, if you want to ask anything specific about Powershell, feel free to drop a post in the Windows thread. It's a fun topic and once you know it, much like any scripting, you start to find lots of uses for it.)

But seriously both of you, the dude says he does basic operations in the Bash shell. He doesn't need "this is a shell", he wants to learn some Windows scripting in his own words and nobody sane does that in cmd.exe. What's simpler for him when about half the examples he finds online wont work for him?

Anyway, cmd.exe in W11 will default to giving you a Powershell terminal anyway (least it does on mine). Please, stop trying to send the poor sod to fucking DOS. The 1980's were long ago.

I used PowerShell extensively from around when it was first introduced (probably late 2007) until about 2013. Every time I try to get back into it I get extremely annoyed, the wordiness of everything and trying to guess what the contents of the .NET objects are really bother me. If you like it, fine, but I don't want to use it anymore, and wouldn't just recommend trying to learn it unless you had a really good use case for writing scripts in that language.

The cmdlets are wordier than GNU utilities, that's for certain. And maybe Powershell itself is slightly wordier. But it's also a Hell of a lot more consistent. Bash is a minefield of gotchas. The brevity of the commands is largely because they violate the UNIX principle of "do one thing and do it well" seven ways to Sunday. Why does find have its own print formatter and why is it different to printf? So yes, grep is a quick thing to type, but it's because it's a kludge of multiple overlapping functions

Anyway, I probably don't need to convince (most) people that Bash is bad. I just can't fathom people who find Powershell worse. The ecosystem is nice as well. Windows policies can check the public certificate (or organizational) one of signed Powershell scripts and it's very easy to configure things like that.

PowerShell objects, while powerful and useful once you wrap your head around them, are definitely way too complex and unique for PS to be your first command line experience.

Rubbish. Someone types ls on Bash and someone types ls on Windows, they're not confused by the fact one is spitting out text and the other an array of objects. The newbie sees a list of files on their screen in both cases. What gets simpler is when they want to connect the output of one to some other command to do something with that information on they find one requires a bunch of text-mangling with Awk whilst the (Windows) version just works.

Im not going to quote it out but I really wish Ruby was more popular as a scripting language.

So do I. On Linux.

Y'all need to mask the tism a bit more.

"I wear no mask!" - Robert W. Chambers, The King in Yellow.

on another note, anyone here doing anything with k8's?

I wanted to. But the Amazon consultant told my employer 'no'. In the consultant's unbiased opinion we should be doing everything with more specifically AWS services.

 

[Slav Power]

I just can't fathom people who find Powershell worse.

Microsoft = evil, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Hence why Bash is better. Even though it's a bigger clusterfuck than Batch. Linux users are simply afraid that with PowerShell 7 being available on Linux, Microsoft is aiming to EEE Bash. And zsh. And fish. Oh yeah, forgot that you have a bigger choice on Linux than just Bash.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I wanted to. But the Amazon consultant told my employer 'no'. In the consultant's unbiased opinion we should be doing everything with more specifically AWS services.

Yuck! How have you not already gone on a murder spree?

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

I am yet to see shell that is better than bash - zsh is basically bash but with worse compatibility as such i don't see appeal of it, fish is bash but retarded, there are things like dash etc but their purpose is to run scripts instead of serving as interactive shell what else is there?

 

[teriyakiburns]

I am yet to see shell that is better than bash - zsh is basically bash but with worse compatibility as such i don't see appeal of it, fish is bash but retarded, there are things like dash etc but their purpose is to run scripts instead of serving as interactive shell what else is there?

Use sh like a real man.

 

[Baraka Obama]

The cmdlets are wordier than GNU utilities, that's for certain. And maybe Powershell itself is slightly wordier. But it's also a Hell of a lot more consistent. Bash is a minefield of gotchas. The brevity of the commands is largely because they violate the UNIX principle of "do one thing and do it well" seven ways to Sunday. Why does find have its own print formatter and why is it different to printf? So yes, grep is a quick thing to type, but it's because it's a kludge of multiple overlapping functions

Anyway, I probably don't need to convince (most) people that Bash is bad. I just can't fathom people who find Powershell worse. The ecosystem is nice as well. Windows policies can check the public certificate (or organizational) one of signed Powershell scripts and it's very easy to configure things like that.

That's the thing though -- as a shell language it sucks. It's too verbose and not fun to throw together a quick one liner like "tail -F log.log | grep "dicknoodle" > dicknoodle_sample.txt"

If I want to do something like that in powershell it'd be

Get-Content log.log -Wait -Tail 0 |
    Where-Object { $_ -match "dicknoodle" } |
    Set-Content dicknoodle_sample.txt

Fun. And that doesn't even handle the capital F flag to watch rotating logs...

As a scripting language I have a hard time bothering when there are more powerful, less verbose / boilerplatey languages. It's in this awkward spot where unless you're doing hyper-Windows-specific automation like a script to configure all the system settings to your liking post Windows setup why would you want to use it? I'm sure it's great for corporate IT departments managing a fleet of laptops. Most recent script I've written is to automate grabbing M3U8 streams and sending them to ffmpeg for download... wouldn't be fun to try that in powershell.

 

[Overly Serious]

That's the thing though -- as a shell language it sucks. It's too verbose and not fun to throw together a quick one liner like "tail -F log.log | grep "dicknoodle" > dicknoodle_sample.txt"

If I want to do something like that in powershell it'd be

Get-Content log.log -Wait -Tail 0 |
    Where-Object { $_ -match "dicknoodle" } |
    Set-Content dicknoodle_sample.txt

Fun. And that doesn't even handle the capital F flag to watch rotating logs...

As a scripting language I have a hard time bothering when there are more powerful, less verbose / boilerplatey languages. It's in this awkward spot where unless you're doing hyper-Windows-specific automation like a script to configure all the system settings to your liking post Windows setup why would you want to use it? I'm sure it's great for corporate IT departments managing a fleet of laptops.

I think the reason for the chief reason for the difference is that your example isn't, strictly speaking, comparing shells and language.

But first, I'd better just point out that your examples don't do the same thing. tail -f does an immediate run whether the file is written to or not. The -Wait flag on Get-Content is waiting until there's an update to the file. I presume you're intent is the Bash version, but just wanted to acknowledge that before I address your point.

What you're actually comparing here are the standard utility programs of GNU and Windows, more than you're comparing the scripting languages. But if you're happy to agree on that, I'm happy to engage on that topic as part of this. I'm going to maintain that Powershell is a much better language than Bash and I think you know that too. If you wanted to "pick your fighter" against Powershell it wouldn't be Bash, it would be Ruby, right? But we can include the standard utilities as part of this. After all, for both scripting languages, it's an inseparable part in practice.

So are the standard utilities in Powershell more verbose than the GNU ones? Yes. I'll cheerfully concede that objectively. Your Bash example is 59 characters long and your Powershell equivalent is 111 characters. (No, @Dante Alighieri , I shall not mask my autism!) But I also have auto-complete and I'll happily take that in return for a highly consistent naming pattern across my commands. It is also hugely more intuitive. As are the flags used across commands as well.

Lets look at the number of commands. Oddly enough I was all ready to concede another minor point as often the Bash equivalent will have fewer steps due to the fact its utilities violate the UNIX principle of do one thing and do it well' habitually, whilst Powershell is much stricter about breaking down the steps. But on this occasion we have three stages in both versions so I'll roll on. It's almost a shame really because this is one of the disadvantages of the GNU utils for a few reasons.

But still, lets get to my counterpoint. One of the things I tout about Powershell vs. Bash is how much more flexible the former is. Your example is barely a script, lets make a simple change. Lets have it maintain the last three matches from the file. That seems something that might be a plausible amendment to your scenario of maintinaing the latest Here's my Powershell version:

$latestSet = New-Object System.Collections.Generic.Queue[string]

Get-Content .\log.log -Wait -Tail 0 |
  Where-Object { $_ -match 'dicknoodle' } |
  ForEach-Object {
    $latestSet.Enqueue($_)
    if ($latestSet.Count -gt 3) { [void]$latestSet.Dequeue() }
    Set-Content -Path dicknoodle_sample.txt -Value $latestSet.ToArray()
  }

I'd say most people with any scripting or programming background can follow that. Again, one of the advantages of Powershell being "verbose" as you put it. But for clarity, I've used the Queue object which is just a generic first in, first out implementation that it has available.

I'm actually curious to see your Bash version that uses grep. Or would you abandon grep for this? If so, that's sort of leading to my point about how much of the perceived brevity of Bash is in fact just its overloaded utility programs. I'd say it's very likely that your Bash version will be longer than the Powershell one now.

BTW, I'm happy to compare one for the rotating logs if you give a Bash example. I find these sorts of comparisons quite educational. It's a while since I've done much scripting in either language.

Most recent script I've written is to automate grabbing M3U8 streams and sending them to ffmpeg for download... wouldn't be fun to try that in powershell.

Actually I did something similar and it was fun. I wanted to parse a whole tree of directories and convert all the animated gifs to webms and put all the gifs in a sub-directory for each of their original locations. I had it firing off multiple instances of Handbrake CLI to do the conversion each in their own process. Was able to use all the in-built support in Powershell for multi-process handling. Worked like a charm, actually. Was good fun.

Yuck! How have you not already gone on a murder spree?

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[DavidS877]

I wanted to. But the Amazon consultant told my employer 'no'. In the consultant's unbiased opinion we should be doing everything with more specifically AWS services.

Of course you should. How else do you get correct vendor lock-in?
If you use Koobernetes then you're using industry standards and can take your workloads to another provider or run them on-premises. On the other hand if you only use AWS approved services like Lambda, CloudFormation, RDS, API Gateway or one of the 300 other AWS proprietary solutions then AWS gets your money FOREVER.

 

[Overly Serious]

Of course you should. How else do you get correct vendor lock-in?
If you use Koobernetes then you're using industry standards and can take your workloads to another provider or run them on-premises. On the other hand if you only use AWS approved services like Lambda, CloudFormation, RDS, API Gateway or one of the 300 other AWS proprietary solutions then AWS gets your money FOREVER.

You have to understand that the over-riding goal of most mid- and senior level managers, is that they not be blamed for anything.

If they follow the advice of someone who works for them directly, they live in terror of having made the wrong decision. But if they follow the advice of someone from AWS, then they feel safe because they haven't made any decisions, they've merely followed the guidance of an industry leading company.

There are typically only two groups of people who properly evaluate risk vs. benefit in an organisation. The owner of the company himself and the engineers. And if we're talking government or public sector, then you can remove "owner of the company" as well.

 

[Baraka Obama]

Your example is barely a script, lets make a simple change.

It isn't a script, it's a one liner I write into shells every now and then. That's the thing, most use of bash is glue together some basic things, maybe throw in an ugly pipe to awk if needed, to do some basic op. It's a really flexible shell language.

The purpose is to take a sample of log data in real time on a log file that rotates (in my case hundreds of times a day, here using -F over -f is significant) -- usually I'll take a 5 to 15 second sample while priming the system with some calls that I would then grep for and correlate back to my requests.

As a scripting language it has certain advantages in certain circumstances, a while ago I tried writing a script that would either a) invoke SSH and call the complete command provided immediately after on my remote system or b) if it's called on that system then run it locally (certain intense file commands run much faster directly on my NAS) and trying to get part b to work in Ruby became cumbersome (actually I couldn't get it to work reliably), in bash it was just

if [[ "$(uname -n)" == *nas* ]]; then
    "$@"
else
...
fi

This way I could write all my other scripts with a prefix to "run_on_nas" and I'd get the perf advantages for my laptop/desktop/etc, but could still run all the same scripts directly on my NAS.

But for anything complicated I don't use bash.

I'm actually curious to see your Bash version that uses grep. Or would you abandon grep for this? If so, that's sort of leading to my point about how much of the perceived brevity of Bash is in fact just its overloaded utility programs

I don't care, it's a simple concept and I know basics of grep better than any given command's built in filtering. Good enough to work, and again it's a one liner I type in from memory.

 

[DavidS877]

If they follow the advice of someone who works for them directly, they live in terror of having made the wrong decision. But if they follow the advice of someone from AWS, then they feel safe because they haven't made any decisions, they've merely followed the guidance of an industry leading company.

A bit of a power level, but I'm a consultant, but I don't work for any particular cloud provider or vendor. On more than one occasion I've been hired to tell the C-level executives what the engineers in the company have already figured out themselves. But because it's from a "trusted" 3rd party then they believe it. It's good money if you can get it.

 

[hog cranking frog]

The pipe is one of the most beautiful parts of the unix way.

How many have seen this old series? If you haven't, def check out the shell part at around 17 minutes. All this waxing and waning about shell script vs commands etc is summed up by two nerds with huge glasses.

 

[Overly Serious]

It isn't a script, it's a one liner I write into shells every now and then. That's the thing, most use of bash is glue together some basic things, maybe throw in an ugly pipe to awk if needed, to do some basic op. It's a really flexible shell language.

Then you're not really demonstrating any real comparison to Powershell. If you're not going to anything more than one line of piping a file into grep you're not going to say anything meaningful about the differences between the two languages and not much about their standard utilities, either.

The difference is that Powershell is used for more sophisticated things and it does them well. It has actual exception handling, not trap, the Windows environment is set up by default to have actual public certificate chains for signing PS scripts for your organisation, it's got good multi-process handling, clean Job management, the syntax is far cleaner and both the language and the standard utilities far more standardised. It's honestly a really long list because Powershell got to look at Bash and UNIX and do a ground up rework from near scratch. It's not DOS++.

So nothing says you need to use it, certainly not me. But if you bother to make an example of why it's inferior and your example is >> dicknoodle.txt being shorter to type than | Set-Content dicknoodle.txt then of course my response is going to be pointing out that doesn't scratch the surface.

So you tell me that you're not interested in scratching the surface. That's fine. But it ain't much use as part of a comparison.

As a scripting language it has certain advantages in certain circumstances,

Advantages over...? The context has been comparing Bash with Powershell but what you go on to detail after this is something not only equally possible in Powershell but Powershell has things like its Fan-out Remoting that let you do what you descrine in a standardised way at large organisational scale and process the responses in a highly efficient way.

But for anything complicated I don't use bash.

But people do use Powershell for complex tasks. I think that speaks to the difference between the two scripting environments and their tool sets.

But anyway, I think can probably leave this there, then.

A bit of a power level, but I'm a consultant, but I don't work for any particular cloud provider or vendor. On more than one occasion I've been hired to tell the C-level executives what the engineers in the company have already figured out themselves. But because it's from a "trusted" 3rd party then they believe it. It's good money if you can get it.

I've been in a similar position. It makes a kind of sense in a sad way given that some of the decision makers find this stuff far beyond them and all they really can do is go by someone's qualifications and authority. They're just hiring mountain guides from their point of view.

It's why you need a good engineering manager - someone who can both be a manager and at the same time know enough to stop every new hire from deciding to restart the whole codebase from scratch.

 

[Baraka Obama]

Then you're not really demonstrating any real comparison to Powershell. If you're not going to anything more than one line of piping a file into grep you're not going to say anything meaningful about the differences between the two languages and not much about their standard utilities, either.

Again you're completely missing the point. As a shell language, PowerShell is too verbose, too wordy, too annoying with the heavy objects passed around. Somehow you keep missing this part, it's the most important part, because using a terminal necessitates using a shell. It's bad enough at this I'd rather use cmd.exe when I need to do basic terminal tasks in Windows, and I checked it is still the default if you open a Command Prompt in a fresh Windows install.

As a scripting language there are simply better options.

 

[Overly Serious]

Again you're completely missing the point.

I'm not missing it. I've replied specifically to that point several times now. I don't give it near the weight that you do.

As a shell language, PowerShell is too verbose, too wordy, too annoying with the heavy objects passed around.

It is simply not a big flaw to me that I type "| Set-Content myFile.txt" instead of ">> myFile.txt".

The only new point you've introduced here is "heavy objects being passed around".

In most scripting scenarios your bottlenecks are going to be disk access and networking. In the circumstances where, I don't know - you don't give examples, say a file object is too "heavy", you could do something different. But I see this as a largely theoretical problem. And before you declare that there are times it is true, at least tell me honestly if it's ever been the case for you? I've also just checked on this as I had a feeling it was the case, but Powershell pipelining does in fact use lazy evaluation. So I really think you're clutching at straws here. The advantages of object pipelining far outweigh any downsides. For a start, object pipelining can quite often result in less often having to return to the disk or network, and that's a very real performance hit on scripting.

Somehow you keep missing this part,

If I didn't reply to your point you could say I'd missed it. But I've responded to it more than once. Not including just now.

it's the most important part, because using a terminal necessitates using a shell. It's bad enough at this I'd rather use cmd.exe when I need to do basic terminal tasks in Windows,

This is absurd. What advantage does using the old cmd.exe shell gain you over something more modern? Do you regard not having Powershell as an option an advantage now? If you say resource usage, I'm going to laugh.

and I checked it is still the default if you open a Command Prompt in a fresh Windows install.

Ah, it opens in Windows Terminal now by default. They changed what it runs in.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/command-prompt-and-windows-powershell-6453ce98-da91-476f-8651-5c14d5777c20

Anyway, that's a tangent of a tangent.

As a scripting language there are simply better options.

Well you were comparing it negatively with Bash and I am unconvinced.

EDIT: This has just turned into some very superficial "OS Wars" thing. Barring something really annoying that makes me want to respond, I'm done with this topic now. I only responded initially because someone specifically pinged me that someone wanted help translating their scripting knowledge to Windows. Anyone who wants to debate Powershell intricacies with me at a deeper level than "this command is ten characters more than this command", move it over to the Windows thread.

 

[Slav Power]

'luv me poweshell
'luv me objects
simpul as

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

heretics!

Why does find have its own print formatter and why is it different to printf? So yes, grep is a quick thing to type, but it's because it's a kludge of multiple overlapping functions

It's not like you are required to use those in a bash script to get the job done. If you wanted to use something more minimal you are free to do that, because they aren't a part of bash, and using external commands, and using the shell to chain them together is what most people do in their scripts. You could install and run the plan9 utils if you wanted. Or you can use fd, or you can skip using any kind of find like utility, and use something else. It's really up to you. And that's once of the nice things of using it.

if [[ "$(uname -n)" == *nas* ]]; then
    "$@"
else
...
fi

You can turn that into a one liner. Which is really great when you need to actually type it on the command line. It's also nice for making scripts nice a brief.

[[ "$(uname -n)" == *nas* ]] && "$@" || "whateverelse"

Anyway. I don't give a fuck about windows shells. Even if they were a gorillion times better I would never use that shit.