OK, if you meant going from DOS batch to UNIX sh scripts, i.e., from one scripting language to another, as the "mental shift", then that's fair.
But using an alias for a program that may be called by a script is not going to address that.
A user can just as easily call curl.exe using BAT, WSH, etc., or PS.
As for DOS, keep in mind MS did not even write the software that became MS-DOS; they bought it.
Many believe it was a copy of the work of Gary Kildall whose CP/M was undisputedly more original and superior in quality to anything else for the "PC".
Using their usual tactics (remember "vaporware"?), MS extinguished Kildall's DR-DOS, and put his company out of business.
Later they paid a $150 million settlement for this move.
What is difficult to understand is why MS cannot make money without copying and interfering with other companies.
What's wrong with their "original" work? Can't they sell that?
Will they use the same tactics against open source projects that write software for UNIX? Maybe that is what concerns people here.
Also difficult to understand why they must force users to "upgrade" and OS that already works? Profits and revenues. Right. Rah rah Redmond.
If this behavior is what they must do in order to derive "profits and revenues" then why would you be confounded by people who would question it?
I'm all for winning in business, profits and revenues, but truthfully I am here because I like using, reading and trying to write software that is better than average.
But using an alias for a program that may be called by a script is not going to address that.
A user can just as easily call curl.exe using BAT, WSH, etc., or PS.
As for DOS, keep in mind MS did not even write the software that became MS-DOS; they bought it.
Many believe it was a copy of the work of Gary Kildall whose CP/M was undisputedly more original and superior in quality to anything else for the "PC".
Using their usual tactics (remember "vaporware"?), MS extinguished Kildall's DR-DOS, and put his company out of business.
Later they paid a $150 million settlement for this move.
What is difficult to understand is why MS cannot make money without copying and interfering with other companies.
What's wrong with their "original" work? Can't they sell that?
Will they use the same tactics against open source projects that write software for UNIX? Maybe that is what concerns people here.
Also difficult to understand why they must force users to "upgrade" and OS that already works? Profits and revenues. Right. Rah rah Redmond.
If this behavior is what they must do in order to derive "profits and revenues" then why would you be confounded by people who would question it?
I'm all for winning in business, profits and revenues, but truthfully I am here because I like using, reading and trying to write software that is better than average.
Microsoft offers nothing in this regard.