The context was: someone had difficulties to find "tar -xf" equivalent for Windows. I pointed out that it would be nice if Microsoft included tar etc. basic utilities in their OS releases. With out-of-the-box Windows machine, you cannot ssh, you cannot untar, etc. Windows-way of doing things is totally different than *nix culture (OS X, Linux, etc). In that context powershell is not "interoperable" (maybe bad wording from me).
> The context was: someone had difficulties to find "tar -xf" equivalent for Windows.
Right and putting that in google, "tar equivalent for windows", immediately nets 5 useful results. You can use tar, or a windows command line variant of 7z or tar, or a gui.
> With out-of-the-box Windows machine, you cannot ssh, you cannot untar, etc.
On an out-of-the-box Linux machine, you generally can't do a lot of things either. It seems particularly ironic that in a discussion about how we shouldn't be using old UNIX tools just because they're entrenched, you then call for compatibility.
> Windows-way of doing things is totally different than *nix culture (OS X, Linux, etc).
Stupid legacy path limits not included, Powershell is in my experience just a superior way to do things. I should maybe restart my blog to talk about that.
But even if we ignore Powershell and windows, your statement is divisive within the Linux community. MANY people prefer shells on Linux that don't adhere to the bash legacy. TCSH and CSH are very popular, to this day. Are they 'not interoperable'?
Everyone's got a big chip on their shoulder about how development tooling "should be." One of the things I've come to realize is how arbitrary, unnecessary, and useless these mores are. They just hold us back.
No. I'm not. But minimal distros are the primary surface area linux exposes for many people these days. The desktop userbase is (justifably) almost non-existent, and most core cloud distros don't even come loaded with curl by default. It's even more extreme as you work with docker.
