Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Also, I see you neglected to respond to the last point.
What, that CMD is nowhere near ending? Why would I argue that? That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. TDEMSYR.
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Should I assume that you've conceded that you're wrong about deprecation warnings?
What am I wrong about? That something being deprecated (i.e. no longer supported) is usually not updated thenceforth with new features? That it's not unreasonable to expect that superseded things should have a path to adaptation from the deprecated thing? What?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If there was a claim from someone in the department in question, that'd be slightly more credible than someone in the PS department, but in its absence, the PS chief architect is pretty damn credible.
Ah, I see you edited that in.
Sure someone standing in front of a video camera is pretty damn credible. How's that wall coming along, by the way?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Also, I see you neglected to respond to the last point.
What, that CMD is nowhere near ending? Why would I argue that? That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. TDEMSYR.
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Should I assume that you've conceded that you're wrong about deprecation warnings?
What am I wrong about? That something being deprecated (i.e. no longer supported) is usually not updated thenceforth with new features? That it's not unreasonable to expect that superseded things should have a path to adaptation from the deprecated thing? What?
No, that the warnings and the declaration were about the end of support for Windows XP, not the deprecation of Windows XP. So if CMD was deprecated, Microsoft would not issue an official declaration or give you tons of warnings; they'd only do that when support for it expired.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If there was a claim from someone in the department in question, that'd be slightly more credible than someone in the PS department, but in its absence, the PS chief architect is pretty damn credible.
Ah, I see you edited that in.
Sure someone standing in front of a video camera is pretty damn credible. How's that wall coming along, by the way?
what?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@dcon said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor Here. Have a wikipedia definition.
The feature has been replaced by a more powerful alternative feature. For instance, the Linux kernel contains two modules to communicate with Windows networks: smbfs and cifs. The latter provides better security, supports more protocol features, and integrates better with the rest of the kernel. Since the inclusion of cifs, smbfs has been deprecated.
Sounds about right.
So it was replaced. Which sounds exactly what a deprecation should entail, namely, that the superseding process provides a way to move off of it. As far as the Internet has lead me to believe, CIFS is a drop-in replacement for smbfs with more features.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If there was a claim from someone in the department in question, that'd be slightly more credible than someone in the PS department, but in its absence, the PS chief architect is pretty damn credible.
Ah, I see you edited that in.
Sure someone standing in front of a video camera is pretty damn credible. How's that wall coming along, by the way?
what?
Some widely popular and authoritative figure one (well, many times) went in front of a camera claiming a particular wall will be built. He's a credible person authorized and authenticated by many different things, but the thing I want to point out that just because something is said, doesn't make it immediately true.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@dcon said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor Here. Have a wikipedia definition.
The feature has been replaced by a more powerful alternative feature. For instance, the Linux kernel contains two modules to communicate with Windows networks: smbfs and cifs. The latter provides better security, supports more protocol features, and integrates better with the rest of the kernel. Since the inclusion of cifs, smbfs has been deprecated.
Sounds about right.
So it was replaced. Which sounds exactly what a deprecation should entail, namely, that the superseding process provides a way to move off of it. As far as the Internet has lead me to believe, CIFS is a drop-in replacement for smbfs with more features.
That is the particular example Wikipedia chose to include. This should not be construed as a denial that general replacements count as deprecation, as they would be a superset of drop-in replacements.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If there was a claim from someone in the department in question, that'd be slightly more credible than someone in the PS department, but in its absence, the PS chief architect is pretty damn credible.
Ah, I see you edited that in.
Sure someone standing in front of a video camera is pretty damn credible. How's that wall coming along, by the way?
what?
Some widely popular and authoritative figure one (well, many times) went in front of a camera claiming a particular wall will be built. He's a credible person authorized and authenticated by many different things, but the thing I want to point out that just because something is said, doesn't make it immediately true.
Anyway, continue, I didn't want to disrupt your logic there which you clearly hadn't finished yet as you sounded like you were saying authority means nothing at all.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Continue.
What? Did I leave a trailing ellipsis somewhere?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
I didn't want to disrupt your logic there which you clearly hadn't finished yet as you sounded like you were saying authority means nothing at all.
So now who's putting words in other people's mouths? You can hear whatever you want.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Also, I see you neglected to respond to the last point.
What, that CMD is nowhere near ending? Why would I argue that? That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. TDEMSYR.
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Should I assume that you've conceded that you're wrong about deprecation warnings?
What am I wrong about? That something being deprecated (i.e. no longer supported) is usually not updated thenceforth with new features? That it's not unreasonable to expect that superseded things should have a path to adaptation from the deprecated thing? What?
No, that the warnings and the declaration were about the end of support for Windows XP, not the deprecation of Windows XP. So if CMD was deprecated, Microsoft would not issue an official declaration or give you tons of warnings; they'd only do that when support for it expired.
So, as your authority figure said at around 21:04 in the video you linked, "If it's used it's supported". Well guess what, shittons of people still use XP, so it is still supported?
Must be, your authority figure said so!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Also, I see you neglected to respond to the last point.
What, that CMD is nowhere near ending? Why would I argue that? That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. TDEMSYR.
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Should I assume that you've conceded that you're wrong about deprecation warnings?
What am I wrong about? That something being deprecated (i.e. no longer supported) is usually not updated thenceforth with new features? That it's not unreasonable to expect that superseded things should have a path to adaptation from the deprecated thing? What?
No, that the warnings and the declaration were about the end of support for Windows XP, not the deprecation of Windows XP. So if CMD was deprecated, Microsoft would not issue an official declaration or give you tons of warnings; they'd only do that when support for it expired.
So, as your authority figure said at around 21:04 in the video you linked, "If it's used it's supported". Well guess what, shittons of people still use XP, so it is still supported?
Must be, your authority figure said so!
No, cmd and PS fit that model that if it's used it's supported. He was clearly not talking about every single Microsoft product when he said that.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Also, I see you neglected to respond to the last point.
What, that CMD is nowhere near ending? Why would I argue that? That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. TDEMSYR.
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Should I assume that you've conceded that you're wrong about deprecation warnings?
What am I wrong about? That something being deprecated (i.e. no longer supported) is usually not updated thenceforth with new features? That it's not unreasonable to expect that superseded things should have a path to adaptation from the deprecated thing? What?
No, that the warnings and the declaration were about the end of support for Windows XP, not the deprecation of Windows XP. So if CMD was deprecated, Microsoft would not issue an official declaration or give you tons of warnings; they'd only do that when support for it expired.
So, as your authority figure said at around 21:04 in the video you linked, "If it's used it's supported". Well guess what, shittons of people still use XP, so it is still supported?
Must be, your authority figure said so!
No, cmd and PS fit that model that if it's used it's supported. He was clearly not talking about every single Microsoft product when he said that.
Is it clear though? My mistake, apparently words don't mean what they say.
-
@Tsaukpaetra What, were you under the assumption that 'it' was plural?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra What, were you under the assumption that 'it' was plural?
Plural? What are you talking about? Do you hear yourself?
No, I assumed "it" was used as in the sixth definition as shown here:
Or, substituting, "If [things in general] are used, [things in general] are supported".
Only when expanded would it be plural; "it's" is referring to a single subject of "things in general".
-
@Tsaukpaetra And that's definition number 6 for a reason. Definition number 1, the most common one, was the one that it could be reasonably assumed he was using in the video. Bolstered, of course, by his comments immediately following it, that that's the model they're applying here.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra And that's definition number 6 for a reason. Definition number 1, the most common one, was the one that it could be reasonably assumed he was using in the video. Bolstered, of course, by his comments immediately following it, that that's the model they're applying here.
The model of "if [things in general] are used, [things in general] are supported"? I agree.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Yes. That is the model they were applying there, according to him. That was not intended as a general statement applying to all Microsoft products.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
That was not intended as a general statement applying to all Microsoft products.
So in other words, generally speaking, if people use things (microsoft created) then they aren't supported, but in this specific instance, they decided to do something different, for some reason?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
That was not intended as a general statement applying to all Microsoft products.
So in other words, generally speaking, if people use things (microsoft created) then they aren't supported, but in this specific instance, they decided to do something different, for some reason?
No. Try again where this time you don't bungle
¬(a → b)
asa → ¬b
.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Try again
Don't presume to command me.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Try again
Don't presume to command me.
That's deprecated. I'm presuming to powershell you.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
Try again
Don't presume to command me.
That's deprecated. I'm presuming to powershell you.
$0 cannot be loaded because the execution of scripts is disabled on this system. Please see "get- help about_signing" for more details. At line:1 char:19
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@pie_flavor said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@pie_flavor said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@pie_flavor said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
.. because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS?
Like what? Run programs? List directories? Set environment variables?
You cannot be serious. I'm talking about specific commands that you'd expect batch files to be able to run.
There's only like, what, some thirty built-in commands? That Microsoft has the source code for?
I can't imagine it would be difficult to map
attrib
ortype
to a PowerShell command with full compatibility.Why, though? cmd.exe works perfectly, there's no need to straight-up remove it. Like Control Panel. There's no links to it, but it still functions if for some reason you want to use it. Or the
reg
command when you can just useHKLM:\
orHKCU:\
in PS.Did you hear? Microsoft is doing its best to eliminate the Control Panel, as you've pointed out elsewhere. After all, you literally can't use Windows without .Net, according to you. Remember that?
They're porting its functionality to Settings, but you can still use it. And yes, a large amount of Windows 10 does not function without .NET in it. MS engineers would likely be put off their lunch at the thought of what you did to that poor computer.
Forgot to respond to this too,which, by your logic, indicates I accepted my incorrectness.
But in any case, no, they'd be sending auditors and lawyers to sue me for my breaking the EULA (that I didn't agree to because I closed my eyes, natch) and demand that I pay for licenses for each VM that was running it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
You literally quoted the answer to that.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
You literally quoted the answer to that.
Did I?
-
@PJH said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If you can remember them in that order, they're in descending numerical order (4,2,1)
It still needs calculations then, no to mention checking and remembering what the current values are, when
o-rw
needs none of those.
-
@Gurth said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@PJH said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
If you can remember them in that order, they're in descending numerical order (4,2,1)
It still needs calculations then, no to mention checking and remembering what the current values are, when
o-rw
needs none of those.I think you're possibly over-stating the mental complexity of manipulating three numbers...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
You literally quoted the answer to that.
Did I?
You did.
-
@PJH said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
I think you're possibly over-stating the mental complexity of manipulating three numbers...
Maybe he's dyscalculic?
-
@dcon said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
There isn't a CMD team.
You sure? Cause there were changes in the last update (1809).
Are you sure it was a CMD feature?
As far as I understand it work was planned to give Windows a TTY program interface like *n*x has. This will impact console host, so if CMD needed changing then I'm sure it will also be required for Powershell or their SSH server.
-
@PJH said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
I think you're possibly over-stating the mental complexity of manipulating three numbers...
Not at all, and ( @dkf ) I’m not dyscalculic. It’s largely, I think, a case of not using the octal permissions enough to be able to remember them offhand, and having a method that is easier to remember so there’s no need to remember the octal numbers.
-
@Gurth I tend to know them, but I need to handle permissions in C code as well at times. And there the choice is between
0750
andS_IRWXU|S_IRGRP|S_IXGRP
. And I only found out aboutS_IRWXU
two minutes ago in the manpage - my initial throught would be 5 or-ed flags.
-
@PleegWat See, in that situation I’d soon know them too. In case of using a terminal, though, I find it a bit odd that just about everyone seems to recommend the octal numbers when they’re far less convenient to use, especially to anyone already unused to them (which is who instructions like “
chmod 0755
to make the directory readable to the webserver” etc. are usually aimed at).
-
Arguing over which command line interface is deprecated is like giving point by point reasons why someone should buy a VHS player over betamax
-
@PleegWat said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Gurth I tend to know them, but I need to handle permissions in C code as well at times. And there the choice is between
0750
andS_IRWXU|S_IRGRP|S_IXGRP
. And I only found out aboutS_IRWXU
two minutes ago in the manpage - my initial throught would be 5 or-ed flags.pjh@hpdesktop:/tmp$ grep rwx include/* include/alderleylib.h:#define rwxrwxrwx (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO) include/alderleylib.h:#define rwxr_xr_x (S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP | S_IROTH | S_IXOTH)
pjh@hpdesktop:/tmp$ grep rwx alderleylib/* alderleylib/gen_report.c: recurse_createdir(dirname(filename_copy), rwxr_xr_x); alderleylib/gen_report.c: recurse_createdir(dirname(filename_copy), rwxr_xr_x); alderleylib/gen_report.c: recurse_createdir(dirname(filename), rwxr_xr_x);
-
@PJH I think one of our modules has things like:
#define FILEMODE_0600 (S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR)
It'll probably be on the receiving end of a cleanup at some point. I think our file handling routines are over-wrapped, but there's some trace logging in there so I'm hesitant to just throw it out.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
You literally quoted the answer to that.
Did I?
You did.
I'm searching for "a lot you'd try to do" and only found a follow up question I asked. your lack of response indicates that you concede that there's not a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
@Tsaukpaetra said in The nerdy jokes thread (bonus original title mode!):
So, again
Additionally, if they really intended PowerShell the be the de-facto shell for Windows, why does cmd.exe not simply link to it?
... because there's a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS? Neither is a superset of the other and Windows maintains backwards compatibility for as long as humanly possible.
I'm actually still waiting for an answer to this, by the way. You've yet to provide an example beyond meaningless drivel about deprecation being bad or something.
You literally quoted the answer to that.
Did I?
You did.
I'm searching for "a lot you'd try to do" and only found a follow up question I asked. your lack of response indicates that you concede that there's not a hell of a lot you'd try to do with cmd.exe that would fail in PS.
dir /q
. Shows owners in CMD, shows a file namedq
in the CWD in PowerShell.
Again: PowerShell has different commands with different arguments, and a lot of tasks are not a 1:1 conversion in terms of steps. If you legitimately think that all CMD commands would work verbatim in PS, or that making them work verbatim would be possible, then you have never used PS and I have no idea why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
No, that says you were trying to tell me facts about PowerShell.
Here, for an actual example, try this post:@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
Because in the case of cmdlets,
Which are actually scripts specially formulated for PowerShell. But do continue to demonstrate that what he said is still true for everything he said.
This is utterly false. The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet or PSCmdlet, which is still the way many people do it.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
No, that says you were trying to tell me facts about PowerShell.
Here, for an actual example, try this post:@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
Because in the case of cmdlets,
Which are actually scripts specially formulated for PowerShell. But do continue to demonstrate that what he said is still true for everything he said.
This is utterly false. The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet.
Oh, so you're citing things said after I challenged you to find something in the past got it.
Oh, so we're talking about only first releases and nothing that came after. Got it.
I see you like changing the rules after the activity has already started. A good practice, people surely love you for it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
No, that says you were trying to tell me facts about PowerShell.
Here, for an actual example, try this post:@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
Because in the case of cmdlets,
Which are actually scripts specially formulated for PowerShell. But do continue to demonstrate that what he said is still true for everything he said.
This is utterly false. The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet.
Oh, so you're citing things said after I challenged you to find something in the past got it.
You forgot the part where I never claimed you were actually telling me facts about PS. I just said you were trying to.
Oh, so we're talking about only first releases and nothing that came after. Got it.
Are you trying to tell me a fact about PS there? Because it sounds like you're saying that's no longer the way cmdlets are made. But I wouldn't want to mistakenly accuse you of stating facts.
I see you like changing the rules after the activity has already started. A good practice, people surely love you for it.
Dunno how you'd see that if there's nothing to support that.
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
No, that says you were trying to tell me facts about PowerShell.
Here, for an actual example, try this post:@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
Because in the case of cmdlets,
Which are actually scripts specially formulated for PowerShell. But do continue to demonstrate that what he said is still true for everything he said.
This is utterly false. The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet.
Oh, so you're citing things said after I challenged you to find something in the past got it.
You forgot the part where I never claimed you were actually telling me facts about PS. I just said you were trying to.
So what is the difference between "trying to tell" and "telling"? Is it the difference between hearing and listening? Because both imply an action was taken regardless of the effect observed.
Oh, so we're talking about only first releases and nothing that came after. Got it.
Are you trying to tell me a fact about PS there? Because it sounds like you're saying that's no longer the way cmdlets are made. But I wouldn't want to mistakenly accuse you of stating facts.
No, we wouldn't want that now, would we? It would be rather unfortunate if that accusation were to suddenly be exposed.
I see you like changing the rules after the activity has already started. A good practice, people surely love you for it.
Dunno how you'd see that if there's nothing to support that.
I mean, we're we talking about PowerShell 1.0 all along? Could have fooled me, because the video you keep coming back to said they were on PowerShell 5.1,which I'm assuming does not have the limitation you describe, and so you changed the rules right there.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
why you're still trying to tell me facts about it.
When did I start telling you facts about PowerShell? Quote me. In this topic, I'm pretty sure I've never done that.
When did I say you were telling me facts about PowerShell?
Literally the post I quoted.
No, that says you were trying to tell me facts about PowerShell.
Here, for an actual example, try this post:@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
Because in the case of cmdlets,
Which are actually scripts specially formulated for PowerShell. But do continue to demonstrate that what he said is still true for everything he said.
This is utterly false. The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet.
Oh, so you're citing things said after I challenged you to find something in the past got it.
You forgot the part where I never claimed you were actually telling me facts about PS. I just said you were trying to.
So what is the difference between "trying to tell" and "telling"? Is it the difference between hearing and listening? Because both imply an action was taken regardless of the effect observed.
I see you like changing the rules after the activity has already started. A good practice, people surely love you for it.
Dunno how you'd see that if there's nothing to support that.
I mean, we're we talking about PowerShell 1.0 all along? Could have fooled me, because the video you keep coming back to said they were on PowerShell 5.1,which I'm assuming does not have the limitation you describe, and so you changed the rules right there.
What limitation is that?
-
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
I see you like changing the rules after the activity has already started. A good practice, people surely love you for it.
Dunno how you'd see that if there's nothing to support that.
I mean, we're we talking about PowerShell 1.0 all along? Could have fooled me, because the video you keep coming back to said they were on PowerShell 5.1,which I'm assuming does not have the limitation you describe, and so you changed the rules right there.
What limitation is that?
I'm going off of what you said here:
@pie_flavor said in Orc-tal; trolling from the nerdy jokes thread:
The original way of creating a PowerShell cmdlet was to write a C# class extending Cmdlet or PSCmdlet, which is still the way many people do it.
Original in this context I assume means 1.0 (i.e. The First) version. You said "many people do it", which indicates that this is a limitation that not all people need to worry about anymore. Because we're not talking about 1.0.
-
I know, shame on me to assume you are arguing in good faith etc.