RSSNew 'Monad' Command Line Hits Beta 1
By Nate Mook | Published June 20, 2005, 2:06 PM
After nearly nine months of testing, Microsoft's next-generation command line based shell has reached Beta 1. Code-named "Monad," the new programmable Unix-like shell was originally thought to be a component of Longhorn, but Microsoft executives have recently indicated the technology is actually three to five years away.
Monad will, however, play a central role in Exchange 12. Administrative functions will be built atop the new shell, which would enable users to do everything from the command line that can be done from the graphical interface. Users interested in trying out Monad can join the beta program by visiting Beta Place with the Guest ID: mshPDC.
Some observations while learning Monad : http://www.xenopz.com/bl...iew.aspx?category=Monad
Score: 0
|Don't believe every headline you read. These comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what Monad is--"This is not your father's CLI." It's not that the CLI itself will take 3-5 years, folks. The 3-5 years is referring to the time it will take before the CLI reaches full usability on the platform--i.e., when it is fully supported by the OS and the server products. In other words, because of the nature of Monad and its capabilities, the other platform applications--Exchange, SQL, IIS etc.--need to be made "Monad-aware" before it will show off its real power. Certainly, there are things you can do with it *today*, but it will take 3-5 years before it will display its full potential. Do some research on it before drawing any conclusions about it or how it compares to other shells. It is impressive.
Score: 0
|"It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver," said Microsoft Senior Vice President Bob Muglia this week at Tech Ed 2005. "We're also building a next-generation user interface, taking our existing Microsoft Management Console (MMC) technology to the next level in terms of usability."
http://www.betanews.com/...for_Longhorn/1118333463
They are re-inventing the wheel.
Score: 0
|Again, look past the headlines and news articles and into the actual product and the documentation, as well as the blogs and technical descriptions of how it works. Don't expect to understand it in 6 paragraphs.
Score: 0
|I gather you can do *anything* with it. For example, you can't really change the mouse-scroll speed from DOS. I've never had a Unix machine, so don't know if you can do it from Unix either. Any way you look at it though, it's an improvement for microsoft.
Score: 0
|Yes, you can do it on a Unix or Linux machine from the command line.
You can even load / unload / change the mouse (or other) drivers on most Unix or Linux machines without rebooting from the command line.
Score: 0
|Cool. I haven't been around as long as unix, so I guess I should have figured it'd have some good things in it, if it's still around today even.
Score: 0
|Gee - JPSoftware 4DOS,4NT, 4OS2, TakeCommand have been around for 15 years (4DOS) they are a Unix based shell - can replace command.com or cmd.exe or whatever OS2 has with HUNDREDS of extra commands. I've been a registered user since 1989 - downloaded it from a BBS at 2400 baud. It takes Microsoft 3-5 years to create the same thing??
Score: 0
|MS has a little more to work on with Monad. There was hardly such a thing as a GUI in 1989, and this command line has to be able to do everything Longhorn's GUI can do - a GUI which hasn't even been finished yet.
There are a lot more variables to consider this time around. Also, they have to write it from scratch (in order to make it work with Longhorn) rather than just building on the same freak'n shell for 15 years like everyone else has been doing.
Score: 0
|"There was hardly such a thing as a GUI in 1989"
You mean there was hardly a Windows GUI in 1989? Windows 386 came out in 1987, which was the eighth Windows release the first happening in Oct 1985. There were already other GUI options available for DOS as well by 1989. Unix had had a GUI for 5 years by then, OS/2 I believe had their GUI for 2-3 years, Atari for 4 years, Amiga for 4 years, and Apple had had their gui for 5 years.
Score: 0
|3 to 5 years... Exchange 12? lol
Okay, so the ability to run a program from a command line as opposed to using the GUI...this is new?
Oooh... gotta go grab this one right away so I can play around with a buggy/unfinished version of something that's been around for ages in *nix.
Nice, guys. Way to innovate.
Score: 0
|While I like MS and their products and have been a beta tester since Windows 98 I have to agree... why is it taking so long to program something that has been around for ages and is nothing new in general computing. 8 months to reach beta1... sure, ok. But another 3-5 years!? Sheesh!
Score: 0
|It is a pretty big project. Basically the command line is becoming OO. Google for some information and you will see just how cool some of the new features are.
Score: 0
|Why don't they just bundle one of the many other shells already available?
They have even created shells that could do a much better job than command.com themselves. Look at Interix or SFU as examples of that.
They don't need to re-write the shell, they in my opinion need to leverage existing products and re-focus those developers on something more innovative.
Every unix shell out there is available for Windows, and nearly all of them have 20 years of maturity that Microsoft just can't re-create in 3-5 years.
Score: 1
|lol. Yeah, let them use someone else's shell just to get ridiculed for *stealing* other code and not writing it themselves. I swear, nothing's good enough for some people.
Score: 0
|It's not just another UNIX-like shell. All their server software needs to be supported by it, just having a shell with lots of commands isn't any use. The target audience for this is not consumers. They are actually making some pretty awesome features in it, but I do agree 3-5 years is a little too long considering its already in Beta 1.
Score: 0
|Can you not read? Microsoft has had a REAL Unix shell for years, you can go download it TODAY so they wouldn't be stealing anything. You are just making sh*t up now.
Score: 0
|I was thinking they should go with the Interix shell because then they could leverage both the maturity of their existing code base, as well as the thousands of scripts that are out there today for those shells running on other OSs.
Score: 0
|OS/2 has had a programable GUI. This is one of the strengths of the WPS. One way of starting an OS/2 program from a script, was to make a custom icon [from the command line], and then launch that. The \NOWHERE directory is for that. either NO-WHERE or NOW-HERE.
You can do this in Windows to some extent, but the actual API that makes icons is itself buggy. The user interface works, though.
You can do quite a lot from the command line, but the shell is so buggy that the changes do not take effect immediately. For example, using the free regina.rexx and patrick mcphee's w32util.dll, you can even modify the registry.
Windows is not built on a tradition of passing commands between applications. Every few years a new "technology" comes out, eg DDE, OLE, etc, which does this. Whatever it is, it is poorly documented, and the average user does not use it.
On the other hand, the OS/2 rexx interface, and the Unix pipe-line are both well documented, and often used.
Score: 0
|