Bash here
In a cygwin package called (appropriately enough) chere, there's a tool to add a command for opening a bash prompt from a Windows folder. It'll even install a cmd here, though not one for PowerShell. (Thanks to Weiqi Gao, for writing up a great post on this.)
Exactly how dangerous is PowerShell?
And here I thought it was just a more advanced, more annoying version of cmd (that I'm hoping supports UNC paths1).
But Microsoft seems to think it's something else entirely. I'm not sure what, though. But whatever it is, it's really really freaking dangerous.
Of course, PowerShell did not destroy my computer. That wasn't the point. The point was that Microsoft's fear mongering was over the top. There's no good reason for an installer to recommend that the user close all other programs. As for backups, the user should be doing regular backups anyway. There's no reason the PowerShell installer in specific should be dangerous.
I find installer text reminding me to do a backup to be an admission that the installer is not safe. If it's not safe, pull it until you have one that you're sure is safe. Disclaimers like this might make sense for service packs, but not for installing an additional shell.
- Oddly enough, bash from cygwin supports UNC paths. [↩]
Gruber's "plain English" translation of Yahoo's "Ack! Microsoft!" memo is funny stuff.
When the best is not recommended.
A lovely quote from the Visual Studio 2005 documentation (found through searching index for /W4):
Level 4 displays all level 3 warnings plus informational warnings, which in most cases can be safely ignored. This option should be used only to provide "lint" level warnings and is not recommended as your usual warning level setting.
Not recommended is actually pretty strong, but I can see why Microsoft might say that. But the very next line goes on:
For a new project, it may be best to use /W4 in all compilations. This will ensure the fewest possible hard-to-find code defects.
So it's recommended, then? Or would recommended be too strong a word?
It seems likely to me that these paragraphs were written by different writers, and whoever made the second change didn't read the first writer's work.
Radio buttons? We use check boxes around here, and we like 'em just fine!
I decided to take Microsoft up on their offer of a free toaster. A few screens in to the installer, I see this:
Cool! So I get to click some of these options, right? I click Use recommended settings:
That's odd, I muse. That option must be incompatible with the others for some reason. So I turn it off and try the next option, Install definition updates only1.
At this point, I turn off the option and try the third option, Ask me later. I know what's going to happen, I just can't quite believe it. Nobody's this stupid, right? Wrong.
And there you have it. When Microsoft first chipped the Windows logo in to cave walls, they must have chipped a check box under it.
I feel almost guilty pointing out Microsoft's stupidities. It's a bit like kicking a puppy. A puppy that when you stop kicking it will pee on your carpet, round the corners of your furniture with its teeth, bite your friends and dry hump your leg, but still a puppy.
- Who writes these option names, anyway? Terribly complicated! [↩]
Do you want the free toaster, the free toaster or the free toaster?
Microsoft offers a variety of exciting offers through "Windows Genuine Advantage Offers."
I'm leaning towards the toaster.
Read about the recall of a Windows XP security patch.