I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate

cheers, jw

Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Steven

Steven
Wed Feb 22 17:22:36 CST 2006

Why?, MS want to replace WSH with Monad? - what else is new (they always
want to replace something good with something rubbish, it's a disappointment
when they don't atleast try ....)

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

"mr_unreliable" <kindlyReplyToNewsgroup@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:eRK7h5$NGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate
>
> cheers, jw



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Michael

Michael
Wed Feb 22 20:55:08 CST 2006

It won't become the standard until it is built into Windows, at least
not in our environment. They didn't really say in that article what the
other "avenues of distribution" would be, but I would guess that Vista
will come with it. Maybe I'm missing something, or just too new to
scripting, but it sounds like an enhancement. From my view it will just
be a new subject to learn to use.

Mike

Steven Burn wrote:
> Why?, MS want to replace WSH with Monad? - what else is new (they always
> want to replace something good with something rubbish, it's a disappointment
> when they don't atleast try ....)
>

Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Wed Feb 22 21:36:14 CST 2006

I don't get the idea with Monad. It seems to
be a sort of faux version of the Unix command
set. Maybe it's something that hardcore Unix
users want? But since when are hardcore Unix
users switching to Windows? And if they are,
why not just encourage them to move into the
1990's and discover GUI? For that matter,
can't they do what they want to with Perl...or
expand XP's faux DOS a bit?

Is Monad actually *replacing* the WSH?
I honestly don't understand the point of view
with this, and I don't understand what the
landscape is expected to look like in Vista with
Monad. (Not that I expect to use Vista....but I'm
very curious. :)

> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default
.aspx#edupdate
>
> cheers, jw



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by jg

jg
Wed Feb 22 23:48:09 CST 2006

As far as I can see Monad is a supplement or better choice of cmd.exe and
combined with better scripting , programming capabilities. As such it sure
can make administrative task easier.

I like the pipe integration between command shell and cmdlet. try taking
the output of wsh or cscript and process or parse in cmd environment. that
is not exactly fun

Yes, you can use GUI to do admin, but for some repetitive tasks, scripting
is the way to go for time saving and accuracy.

I will agree, now is the time for using Monad for production purpose

"mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:O4aLf.2470$S25.1870@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I don't get the idea with Monad. It seems to
> be a sort of faux version of the Unix command
> set. Maybe it's something that hardcore Unix
> users want? But since when are hardcore Unix
> users switching to Windows? And if they are,
> why not just encourage them to move into the
> 1990's and discover GUI? For that matter,
> can't they do what they want to with Perl...or
> expand XP's faux DOS a bit?
>
> Is Monad actually *replacing* the WSH?
> I honestly don't understand the point of view
> with this, and I don't understand what the
> landscape is expected to look like in Vista with
> Monad. (Not that I expect to use Vista....but I'm
> very curious. :)
>
>> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
>>
>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default
> .aspx#edupdate
>>
>> cheers, jw
>
>



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Thu Feb 23 00:09:05 CST 2006

> As far as I can see Monad is a supplement or better choice of cmd.exe and
> combined with better scripting , programming capabilities. As such it sure
> can make administrative task easier.
>

I haven't used cmd.exe, but isn't that essentially
DOS updated and adapted to NT/XP? I can see
how that would be useful, but is it replacing the
text script file and GUI options of WSH? That's
what I don't get. They seem like alternate approaches
rather than competing approaches.



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by asdf

asdf
Thu Feb 23 02:27:49 CST 2006

After watching the ms videos and listening to the project managers
recordings.

He clinges to his job.

And it looks like a DOS box with white background.

===========================================

But I will love it.

==============

I wrote my own thingy that gives me in below a second
any Manufaturer and version of any file on the machine(s)
for any win32 /(nt) version.

===============

May be the leadership at ms can not keep up with the crooks.

***************

Monad is devilishly close in my dictionary's sort order
to month / Monat in scotish /german.

Things to expect. A change for reason every month.

I would hope.

==============

You should see the "Oil and Gas - CT Demo"

detail
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx?pocId=&freetext=oil&DisplayLang=en

download
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?na=22&p=1&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=&u=%2fdownloads%2fdetails.aspx%3fFamilyID%3d2ce8a20c-43fd-4e87-8163-23d44bf91a34%26DisplayLang%3den

A harvard mba textbook write off, neglecting the law of diminishing returns.
Implicating as long there are Dollars there will be Oil.

Mr. Chairman I had finished my college outstandingly over
20 years ago on the subject across the nation's wealth and higher
priveliged than you could not get anyone through.
And I was not silenced and enjoy that representatives start to think alike.

MORE :

If you guys are so conservative and Republican why does something
like this escape your future.

"February 15, 2006: The End of Dollar Hegemony"

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm


Hurry, It wont last long.


************

Disclaimer:
I am universally awash with any windows or office licences
purchased from e-bay. So hold your horses.





















"Steven Burn" <somewhere@in-time.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23Qy5MbAOGHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Why?, MS want to replace WSH with Monad? - what else is new (they always
> want to replace something good with something rubbish, it's a
disappointment
> when they don't atleast try ....)
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Steven Burn
> Ur I.T. Mate Group
> www.it-mate.co.uk
>
> Keeping it FREE!
>
> "mr_unreliable" <kindlyReplyToNewsgroup@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eRK7h5$NGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
> >
> >
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate
> >
> > cheers, jw
>
>


Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by asdf

asdf
Thu Feb 23 03:23:49 CST 2006

yak

"mr_unreliable" <kindlyReplyToNewsgroup@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:eRK7h5$NGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate
>
> cheers, jw


Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by de

de
Thu Feb 23 16:16:22 CST 2006

And I'll bet the "DIR" command still won't work right (but I'm not BITTER!)

"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:eeJXfrFOGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> yak
>
> "mr_unreliable" <kindlyReplyToNewsgroup@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eRK7h5$NGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
>>
>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate
>>
>> cheers, jw
>



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Fri Feb 24 09:53:05 CST 2006

>
> > I don't get the idea with Monad. It seems to
> > be a sort of faux version of the Unix command
> > set. Maybe it's something that hardcore Unix
> > users want? But since when are hardcore Unix
> > users switching to Windows? And if they are,
> > why not just encourage them to move into the
> > 1990's and discover GUI? For that matter,
> > can't they do what they want to with Perl...or
> > expand XP's faux DOS a bit?
> >
> >> cheers, jw
>
> Monad is not replacing wsh/wmi, it is a consumer of the .net
> framework, just as vbscript/jscript is a consumer of wsh/wmi. The .net
> framework is replacing wsh/wmi.
>
> Windows is not file based, therefore you need a interface to everything.
> In unix/linux if you want to process dhcp mac-address you simply read the
> file that contains those entries. wsh/wmi has a lot of "holes" in it,
> areas where you can not manage, for example dhcp entries.
> cmd and bat files are different, given that windows is not file based
> cmd/bat needs to use utilities to "connect" to the system. Not to
> mentioned cmd.exe as a language is pretty limited.
>
> The thinking behind Monad is that windows simply can not be managed as
> cheaply or efficiently with lower resources than unix/linux systems. This
> is fact, one unix/linux system admin, all else being equal can manage
> exponentially more systems natively than a windows admin can.
>
> So what are the tools that enable unix/linux management like this? Bash,
> and python/perl/ruby compared to cmd.exe and vbscript. Which is why you
> are seeing msh which seems to scale beyond just a scripting environment,
> but can be used quite easily for it.
>
> Vbscript, if any of you have ever used python or even perl you will know
> why vbscript is going away and ironpython is being developed.
>
> Microsofts' choices were expand vbscript and wmi/wsh to be competitive or
> leverage the .net framework. They chose to leverage.
> A good choice, I for one am looking forward to msh, and ironpython, which
> will finally bring windows system administration on par with unix/linux
> for automation and administration scalability. It will also lower the bar
> for advanced management and we will probably see a ton of more tools.
> Imagine apt/yum for windows, or native tools like cfengine, rsh,
> rdiff-backup, rsync, etc.
>

Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
found much information. So what you're saying.... That
means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
(that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Steven

Steven
Fri Feb 24 12:02:32 CST 2006

"mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:BZFLf.3014$S25.167@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
</snip>
> Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
> get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
> found much information. So what you're saying.... That
> means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
> And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
> (that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?
>

I belive what he's saying is, just as the VB'ers were screwed by Microsoft,
so to are the VBScripters ....

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Fri Feb 24 15:42:50 CST 2006


> > Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
> > get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
> > found much information. So what you're saying.... That
> > means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
> > And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
> > (that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?
> >
>
> I belive what he's saying is, just as the VB'ers were screwed by
Microsoft,
> so to are the VBScripters ....
>
:) Yes, that's what it sounds like....and also
the poor people who've labored to remember
all those weird WMI objects with the funky,
not-really-SQL syntax. WMI was widely celebrated,
when it was first released, as the fulfillment of
the WBEM standard on Windows. Microsoft
pushed it so much that VB experts were even
recommending it to VB developers as a new
extension of the API that could do just about
anything. (I remember an article about it in
VBPJ or MSDN.) Oh, well...

I was hoping that someone would be able to
clarify exactly how this all fits together on Vista,
but maybe that information has not all been
released yet.



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Michael

Michael
Fri Feb 24 19:49:34 CST 2006

> Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
> get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
> found much information. So what you're saying.... That
> means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
> And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
> (that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?


Has good old *.bat files and %comspec% gone away?

Has classic (maybe legacy is a better term) *.asp gone away.

Has the VB runtime or COM disappeared via some OS service pack/patch?

Are old 16-bit DOS executables really 100% gone?

The options available to scripters are likely grow over time. Older
technologies (notably those COM based like WSH et.al.) will eventually
become part of the 'static legacy past' as new technologies appear and grow
to become tomorrow's legacy while yet newer tehnologies appear and ....

You can look forward to the future or live in the past - today is only 24
hours long ;-)...

--
Michael Harris
Microsoft MVP Scripting

Scripting: Your First Steps
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/beginner/firststeps.mspx




Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Sat Feb 25 00:01:35 CST 2006



> > Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
> > get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
> > found much information. So what you're saying.... That
> > means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
> > And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
> > (that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?
>
>
> Has good old *.bat files and %comspec% gone away?
>
> Has classic (maybe legacy is a better term) *.asp gone away.
>
> Has the VB runtime or COM disappeared via some OS service pack/patch?
>
> Are old 16-bit DOS executables really 100% gone?
>
> The options available to scripters are likely grow over time. Older
> technologies (notably those COM based like WSH et.al.) will eventually
> become part of the 'static legacy past' as new technologies appear and
grow
> to become tomorrow's legacy while yet newer tehnologies appear and ....
>

I hope you're right, but that doesn't seem
to be what "bob" was saying. I've been wondering
about all of this lately, not only because of the
Monad news but also because I'd heard about
a "Regfree COM" wrapper that's apparently
going to let .Net software use COM objects without
being registered. COM libraries will apparently be
packaged with some kind of interface that allows
.Net to see the type library, with the COM file
installed in the local app. folder rather than the
system folder. That's a striking development - that
MS has decided .Net should get access to COM but
that they're doing it with a kind of hack rather than
making .Net COM-aware. All this raises a lot of questions
about exactly how it will all fit together. For instance,
if Vista provides for "legacy" COM, but doesn't
come with any registered objects because it's not
using COM, then that would put a very big dent in
the functionality of WSH, VB, etc. ... assuming they're
still in the game at all.
I would think that by this stage there should be some
clear information available as to how exactly Vista
handles these things.




Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by asdf

asdf
Sat Feb 25 03:33:05 CST 2006

"DIR"

is displaying something.

Upper Case and 8.3 short.

----------------------------------

I bought a machine and software to do this stuff for me.

And it was a dream machine in 1995 for $5000.

----------------------

I don't intend to pay someone for clicking and pressing
buttons to get an inventory on my investment.


==================

And all I get is TV commercials for cars and how to
indebt my children and grandchildren.

And the year is 2006 and I hear that people who ought to be
in jail are high ranking politicians now.

---------

That's great. That is really great.








"de Graff" <rjdegraff@hydro.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:uNOpIbMOGHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> And I'll bet the "DIR" command still won't work right (but I'm not
BITTER!)
>
> "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
> news:eeJXfrFOGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > yak
> >
> > "mr_unreliable" <kindlyReplyToNewsgroup@notmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eRK7h5$NGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> I trust you have all read this, if not then read it and weep.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/Scripting/default.aspx#edupdate
> >>
> >> cheers, jw
> >
>
>


Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Al

Al
Sat Feb 25 17:40:04 CST 2006


"Michael Harris (MVP)" <mikhar at mvps dot org> wrote in message
news:%231eQ22aOGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Thank you for that explanation. I've been trying to
> > get a handle on the overall changes lately but haven't
> > found much information. So what you're saying.... That
> > means that there's no VBS, WSH, or WMI in Vista?
> > And is COM gone? So there's only shell scripting
> > (that can use .Net objects?) and no GUI options?
>
>
> Has good old *.bat files and %comspec% gone away?
>
> Has classic (maybe legacy is a better term) *.asp gone away.
>
> Has the VB runtime or COM disappeared via some OS service pack/patch?
>
> Are old 16-bit DOS executables really 100% gone?
>
> The options available to scripters are likely grow over time. Older
> technologies (notably those COM based like WSH et.al.) will eventually
> become part of the 'static legacy past' as new technologies appear and
grow
> to become tomorrow's legacy while yet newer tehnologies appear and ....
>
> You can look forward to the future or live in the past - today is only 24
> hours long ;-)...

If your name is Jack Bauer, the whole season is only 24 hours long!

/Al



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by TDM

TDM
Sat Feb 25 18:36:58 CST 2006


"mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:5kcLf.2651$5M6.1373@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> As far as I can see Monad is a supplement or better choice of cmd.exe and
>> combined with better scripting , programming capabilities. As such it sure
>> can make administrative task easier.
>>
>
> I haven't used cmd.exe, but isn't that essentially
> DOS updated and adapted to NT/XP? I can see
> how that would be useful, but is it replacing the
> text script file and GUI options of WSH? That's
> what I don't get. They seem like alternate approaches
> rather than competing approaches.
>
>

I for one use the command shell exclusively. You are
pretty much correct when you say DOS adapted to
NT/XP. Just add a few hundred more commands
to the list.

When you want to get stuff done FAST,
you do it in a shell. I liken it to using keyboard shortcuts
versus the mouse(which I also do). There are also things
you just cant do in a GUI that you can do in a shell. Try
flushing the name table in the GUI. Or releasing a DHCP
lease when there is nothing wrong. I know "Repair" will do
that but Repair only shows up when there are issues.

One other small advantage to the shell, when someone is
watching, for the most part they dont have a clue as
to what you are doing.

I have played with MONAD a bit, it is different from WSH,
but then so was WSH from perl or Korn shell when I first started.
I also have roots in Linux/UNIX so for me, Monad is a blessing.

I got to believe M$ developed it for a good reason.
I believe it will be a more robust replacement for WSH
and we will all start using it, and perhaps grow to love it ?

Just my $.02

TDM



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Michael

Michael
Sat Feb 25 19:31:42 CST 2006

> I got to believe M$ developed it for a good reason.
> I believe it will be a more robust replacement for WSH
> and we will all start using it, and perhaps grow to love it ?
>
> Just my $.02

Your point of view is certainly worth waaaaaaay more the $.02 and IMHO spot
on...


--
Michael Harris
Microsoft MVP Scripting

Scripting: Your First Steps
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/beginner/firststeps.mspx




Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Al

Al
Sun Feb 26 16:19:05 CST 2006


"TDM" <tdm3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uXnQLzmOGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
> news:5kcLf.2651$5M6.1373@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> As far as I can see Monad is a supplement or better choice of cmd.exe
and
> >> combined with better scripting , programming capabilities. As such it
sure
> >> can make administrative task easier.
> >>
> >
> > I haven't used cmd.exe, but isn't that essentially
> > DOS updated and adapted to NT/XP? I can see
> > how that would be useful, but is it replacing the
> > text script file and GUI options of WSH? That's
> > what I don't get. They seem like alternate approaches
> > rather than competing approaches.
> >
> >
>
> I for one use the command shell exclusively. You are
> pretty much correct when you say DOS adapted to
> NT/XP. Just add a few hundred more commands
> to the list.

I understand that MSH could be looked at as a further extension in this
direction...

> When you want to get stuff done FAST,
> you do it in a shell. I liken it to using keyboard shortcuts
> versus the mouse(which I also do). There are also things
> you just cant do in a GUI that you can do in a shell. Try
> flushing the name table in the GUI. Or releasing a DHCP
> lease when there is nothing wrong. I know "Repair" will do
> that but Repair only shows up when there are issues.
>
> One other small advantage to the shell, when someone is
> watching, for the most part they dont have a clue as
> to what you are doing.

Your comments regarding "the shell" apply equally, in some cases, to other
non-GUI "shells" as well.

> I have played with MONAD a bit, it is different from WSH,
> but then so was WSH from perl or Korn shell when I first started.
> I also have roots in Linux/UNIX so for me, Monad is a blessing.
>
> I got to believe M$ developed it for a good reason.
> I believe it will be a more robust replacement for WSH
> and we will all start using it, and perhaps grow to love it ?
>
> Just my $.02

Undervalued opinion.

But I suspect that there will still remain things that are more naturally
done with the cmd shell, and perhaps even some with WSH.

/Al



Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by mayayana

mayayana
Mon Feb 27 11:25:29 CST 2006


>
> I do not know what microsoft's support plan is , I do know that they have
> stopped developing vbscript years ago. I think that vbscript, wmi, and wsh
> regardless if they are "supported" or not will be useless
> comparatively against msh and ironpython and other .net framework
> technologies. Wmi will still be around, and developed as far as I have
> heard, but I could be wrong on that. wsh/vbscript are supposed to be still
> supported but microsft has said they are have stopped development on them.
>

Thanks. I've been doing some research since
this discussion got going, having downloaded the
Monad docs and some articles. I can't seem to find
a totally definitive declaration about VBS and WSH,
but the MS position does appear to be, as you say,
that there will be no further development but that the
older options will still be left in the system for whoever
wants to use them.

>
> I think once you get used to msh you will really like it. The
> opportunities for automatation with msh are awesome if microsoft goes
> ahead with what it says it is planning. And it actually works as stated.
>

I haven't had much chance to look it over, but there
are two thoughts I have:

1) Something designed
optimally for admin is not necessarily optimally designed
for other uses. Hopefully Monad is good for both. Personally
I don't need to adjust something or check installations
on 100 machines. I'm more apt to want to alter 100 files on
1 machine....or vwrite a small program to automate something.

2) Personally I don't like command line. To my mind, if I'll
need to write a command with options more than a couple of
times then I may as well write a script or program to automate the
whole thing, rather than having to memorize all the
command options and type it out by hand every time.

Of course, command line is great as one option, but
that doesn't appear to be the plan with Monad. I may be
missing something with Monad (I've just started reading the
docs), but it appears to me that it doesn't provide a host for
actual text files. In other words, it's great if MS wants to add
a new system for scripting, but if they cut out the intermediate
level - between command line and compiled software - of hosted
script files, leaving only command line hosting, then interactive
script applets would be impossible. That's mostly
what I use script for. For instance, something as simple as
removing read-only attributes: I have a script on my Desktop
for that. When I copy a folder from a CD I can remove all read-only
attributes in the folder by dropping it onto the script. That's far
easier than opening a console window, doing a cd to Desktop,
then carefully typing in an attrib command.

On the other hand, maybe, as Michael Harris suggested,
I'm just an old fuddydud attached to technicolor GUI
functionality while the world is moving on, "back to the
future", to the advanced world of console text input. Perhaps
I should just be glad that the new cutting edge doesn't
involve punch cards. :)






Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by /\\/\\o\\/\\/

/\\/\\o\\/\\/
Mon Feb 27 12:36:04 CST 2006

I'm a MVP op Monad (Windows Admin Frameworks)

I'm mostly in microsoft.public.windows.server.scripting , but I came
across the, I think interesting discussion , on this thread.

I would like to note for who is interested in Monad, that in that
newsgroup you can find the Monad team, and others answering questions on
Monad (MSH), and you can find great support there.

I also did put some Comments inline

mayayana wrote:
>> I do not know what microsoft's support plan is , I do know that they have
>> stopped developing vbscript years ago. I think that vbscript, wmi, and wsh
>> regardless if they are "supported" or not will be useless
>> comparatively against msh and ironpython and other .net framework
>> technologies. Wmi will still be around, and developed as far as I have
>> heard, but I could be wrong on that. wsh/vbscript are supposed to be still
>> supported but microsft has said they are have stopped development on them.
>>

you must see Monad more as a "tool" to get to those technologies quick.
Monad e.g. has WMI / COM / ADSI and .NET support
for example :

get-WMIObject win32_operatingsystem

will get back that WMI class.

> Thanks. I've been doing some research since
> this discussion got going, having downloaded the
> Monad docs and some articles. I can't seem to find
> a totally definitive declaration about VBS and WSH,
> but the MS position does appear to be, as you say,
> that there will be no further development but that the
> older options will still be left in the system for whoever
> wants to use them.
>
>> I think once you get used to msh you will really like it. The
>> opportunities for automatation with msh are awesome if microsoft goes
>> ahead with what it says it is planning. And it actually works as stated.
>>

I'm using Monad now since october and as said got realy addicted ;-)

> I haven't had much chance to look it over, but there
> are two thoughts I have:
>
> 1) Something designed
> optimally for admin is not necessarily optimally designed
> for other uses. Hopefully Monad is good for both. Personally
> I don't need to adjust something or check installations
> on 100 machines. I'm more apt to want to alter 100 files on
> 1 machine....or vwrite a small program to automate something.

I think it is its great to figure some things out on the commandline and
then put them together as a script.

> 2) Personally I don't like command line. To my mind, if I'll
> need to write a command with options more than a couple of
> times then I may as well write a script or program to automate the
> whole thing, rather than having to memorize all the
> command options and type it out by hand every time.

I think you will like monad for this reason, you have a lot of power on
one-liners and its easy to combine them in a script.

> Of course, command line is great as one option, but
> that doesn't appear to be the plan with Monad. I may be
> missing something with Monad (I've just started reading the
> docs), but it appears to me that it doesn't provide a host for
> actual text files. In other words, it's great if MS wants to add
> a new system for scripting, but if they cut out the intermediate
> level - between command line and compiled software - of hosted
> script files, leaving only command line hosting, then interactive
> script applets would be impossible. That's mostly
> what I use script for. For instance, something as simple as
> removing read-only attributes: I have a script on my Desktop
> for that. When I copy a folder from a CD I can remove all read-only
> attributes in the folder by dropping it onto the script. That's far
> easier than opening a console window, doing a cd to Desktop,
> then carefully typing in an attrib command.

Monad has full support for script files, and interactive use.

> On the other hand, maybe, as Michael Harris suggested,
> I'm just an old fuddydud attached to technicolor GUI
> functionality while the world is moving on, "back to the
> future", to the advanced world of console text input. Perhaps
> I should just be glad that the new cutting edge doesn't
> involve punch cards. :)
>

LOL, did not see punch cards yet (but did see Logo;-))

I think some good points are made in this post(and rest of thread), but
I think Monad will "fulfill" most of them,
I really like it to have a powerful shell again, after all those "GUI
years"

gr /\/\o\/\/

PS I also have a blog about Monad, and you can find links to some more
there :

http://mow001.blogspot.com


Re: Monad: The Future of Windows Scripting by Al

Al
Mon Feb 27 12:59:13 CST 2006


"bob" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.27.15.58.31.289526@bob.com...
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:01:35 +0000, mayayana wrote:
>
> >
> > I hope you're right, but that doesn't seem
> > to be what "bob" was saying. I've been wondering
> > about all of this lately, not only because of the
> > Monad news but also because I'd heard about
> > a "Regfree COM" wrapper that's apparently
> > going to let .Net software use COM objects without
> > being registered. COM libraries will apparently be
> > packaged with some kind of interface that allows
> > .Net to see the type library, with the COM file
> > installed in the local app. folder rather than the
> > system folder. That's a striking development - that
> > MS has decided .Net should get access to COM but
> > that they're doing it with a kind of hack rather than
> > making .Net COM-a