rjs@moss.ATT.COM (08/24/88)
In article <24516@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: > ... >This may be a bit late in the reply chain but I read the review. The >reviewer was obviosly an MS-DOS person with little or no UNIX >knowledge. > ... >Along a similar line, check out John Dvorak's article in August PC >magazine concerning UNIX on PC-style machines. I found the article >interesting in that he got an awful lot of facts wrong about the >history of UNIX and what it's meant for. > >jim frost >madd@bu-it.bu.edu It's not obvious that John Dvorak even understands MS-DOS. In PC Computing's August issue, he tries to explain why UNIX will not beat out OS/2 for multitasking applications with the following: "To make Unix acceptable to end users, computer manufacturers have to design complex shells that shield the user from the Unix kernel. In essence, the user talks to the shell and the shell talks to Unix. The shell takes plain-English commands or creates menus through which users must plod as the only means of instructing the machine." He then goes on to explain that end users prefer the MS-DOS way of executing programs. I wonder what he thinks command.com is if not a shell that shields the user from the MS-DOS kernel. Robert Snyder {att|ihnp4|clyde}!moss!rjs (201) 386-4467 UNIX is a trademark of AT&T. MS-DOS is a trademark of MicroSoft (I think). The above statements are my own thoughts and observations and are not intended to represent my employer's position on the subject(s).
ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen) (08/28/88)
I just have to comment to Robert Snyder's #20140 in which he comments on John Dvorak's ignorance of DOS for saying that Unix(tm) machines need a user friendly shell, while DOS doesn't, then Robert's comment "What does he think Command.COM is". I am a heavy DOS user, and casual Unix user, and I think "type" is easier to remember than "cat"; "dir" easier than "ls", or even "dir /w" than "lc". I like Unix. I "appreciate it" for the environment it fulfills, but I really can't see 10 million PC users preferring the cryptic Unix commands to the more simple DOS commands. P.S. there's NOTHING wrong with cryptic - depending upon the USER - I use APL, and PMATE is my favorite editor AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, in which [S;$@X=1^@X>31^-M9IQR0L] is a program to scan an assembly source program, and move any comment lines which aren't starting in column 1 but which start left of column 32, over so the ';' is in column 32.
tr@wind.bellcore.com (tom reingold) (08/29/88)
Ward says that he likes Unix but prefers the command names of DOS because they are less cryptic. I agree that Unix commands are cryptic but I really think this is a tiny point. To extreme neophytes, it doesn't matter what a command is because they are not even sure what they are doing conceptually. To neophytes who are not quite that extreme, the cryptic commands are learned with a very slightly extra amount of effort but once learned, they are remembered just as well as the more intuitively named ones. I worked at a place where people used computers heavily and were not interested in them other than to get their work done. They had many difficulties with Unix but the command names were not among the real difficulties. Tom Reingold PAPERNET: |INTERNET: tr@bellcore.bellcore.com Bell Communications Research |UUCP-NET: bellcore!tr 445 South St room 2L350 |SOUNDNET: (201) 829-4622 [work], Morristown, NJ 07960-1910 | (201) 287-2345 [home]
smc@mtund.ATT.COM (Steven Casagrande) (08/30/88)
In article <9837@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: >Ward says that he likes Unix but prefers the command names of DOS >because they are less cryptic. > Who cares if the Unix commands are cryptic? It is relatively easy to write script files to "change" the name of ls, cp, rm, etc. (Change the name of UNIX commands? GASP!) This is useful because many people work on both PC's and UNIX machines, and it's easy to forget where you are and type DIR instead of LS. If you have some command files on BOTH machines to allow LS to work in MS-DOS, or DIR to work on UNIX, then you can work fast even if you made a mistake. Of course, a new user may not understand how to create script files.... :-) ___ ======= "The Power of the Force +---------------------------+ =.....===== stopped you hosers, eh!" | TIME 0:00 | =.......===== -- Strange Brew | KANSAS 83 chOKLAHOMA 79 | =......====== +---------------------------+ =========== Steve Casagrande These are not the ideas of AT&T Bell Labs, ====== att!mtund!smc but they reserve the right to purchase them.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/30/88)
In article <6414@chinet.UUCP> ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen) writes:
P.S. there's NOTHING wrong with cryptic - depending upon the USER - I
use APL, and PMATE is my favorite editor AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, in
which [S;$@X=1^@X>31^-M9IQR0L] is a program to scan an assembly source
program, and move any comment lines which aren't starting in column 1
but which start left of column 32, over so the ';' is in column 32.
Ward, with all due respect, columns belong in column 40. (Note
Followup-To). I have probably written about 100K 8088 opcodes, so
there should be no question that I am the possessor of the absolute
certainty that column forty is the place at which comments are the
most satisfied, happy, and, well, joyful. The sight of a comment
whose semicolon is carefully aligned in the middle of the screen is
one of the seven wonders of the world. A well-aligned comment is a
comment that knows its place in the world. I put all my comments
beginning at the center of the screen and haven't had a single
complaint from any of my comments. All my comments are good,
middle-of- the-screen comments, not a one of them is to be found left
of center.
'Nuff said. AaPdOvLaOnGcIeES
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff,
you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the
facts. Now, what do you wish to call it?"walt@plx.UUCP (Walt Novinger ) (08/31/88)
In article <1028@mtund.ATT.COM> smc@mtund.UUCP (Steven Casagrande) writes: >In article <9837@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: >>Ward says that he likes Unix but prefers the command names of DOS >>because they are less cryptic. >> > >Who cares if the Unix commands are cryptic? It is relatively easy >to write script files to "change" the name of ls, cp, rm, etc. > >(Change the name of UNIX commands? GASP!) Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted, even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used). ============================================================================== Walt Novinger | ...!sun!plx!walt | "Money is like a sixth Plexus Computers, Inc. | waldo@cup.portal.com | sense. Without it, the 3833 N. First Street | home (415) 964-9377 | other five are useless." San Jose, CA 95134 | work (408) 943-2406 | Montague (I think) ==============================================================================
ldh@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM (09/01/88)
Speaking of John ... Anyone seen his latest column (inside track) in the latest PC Magazine? ... not only is he talking about the '486s ... but also about a '286 that seems to run rings around anything out there! ... anyone have more info besides what John mentions in the article??? Leo Hinds *net: ldh@hdw.harris.com uunet!hcx1!hardy!ldh usps: Harris CSD, ms #156, 2101 W Cypress Creek Rd, Ft Lauderdale FL 33309 at&t: (305)973-5229
egs@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Schnoebelen) (09/01/88)
In article <1185@plx.UUCP> walt@plx.UUCP (Walt Novinger (sales)) writes: .In article <1028@mtund.ATT.COM> smc@mtund.UUCP (Steven Casagrande) writes: .>In article <9837@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: .>>Ward says that he likes Unix but prefers the command names of DOS .>>because they are less cryptic. .>> .> .>Who cares if the Unix commands are cryptic? It is relatively easy .>to write script files to "change" the name of ls, cp, rm, etc. .> .>(Change the name of UNIX commands? GASP!) . .Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be .mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a .link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, .simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". .From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted, .even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space .is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used). Fair warning to all on linking commands to different names under UNIX(TM). This may well be possible for 'ls', but for cp, it figures out what to do based upon how it was called, eg. as cp, mv or ln. If it wasn't called with one of those names, it returns a 'I don't know what to do' sort of message. Links only eat up a directory entry ( assuming they are on the same file system ), not an inode. Cheers! Eric Schnoebelen John W. Bridges & Associates, Inc. Lewisville, Tx u-word!egs@killer.dallas.tx.us ( a Cyclone in Longhorn/Mustang country )
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (09/01/88)
In article <6414@chinet.UUCP> ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen) writes:
...I just have to comment to Robert Snyder's #20140 in which he comments on
...John Dvorak's ignorance of DOS for saying that Unix(tm) machines need
...a user friendly shell, while DOS doesn't, then Robert's comment "What
...does he think Command.COM is".
... I am a heavy DOS user, and casual Unix user, and I think "type" is
...easier to remember than "cat"; "dir" easier than "ls", or even "dir /w"
...than "lc".
Hi, Ward. You probably find those easier to remember because you have
been using them since CP/M 1.4 - at least. I wonder which would be
easier to remember if you had started with UNIX.dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (09/02/88)
In article <797@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >Hi, Ward. You probably find those easier to remember because you have >been using them since CP/M 1.4 - at least. I wonder which would be >easier to remember if you had started with UNIX. Good point. I've seen VAX/VMS users attempt to create a VMS-like environment on a UNIX system by defining all sorts of aliases. Me, I prefer to define symbols such as "df", "pwd", and "cd" for VMS equivalents such as "show quota", "show default" and "set default". I rather like saying "ls" instead of "dir" because it's 67% less typing :-) and I can say "ls" on all systems I use if I define the appropriate synonyms everywhere. (Actually, on MS-DOS systems, I use "d" and "ls" to invoke non-MS-DOS directory listers, since the MS-DOS style of listing filenames in the order they happen to be randomly scattered about on disk is not to my taste. I leave "dir" alone and don't use it.) Some would claim that "mkdir" and "rmdir" are more understandable than "md" and "rd". MS-DOS allows both, and I use the shorter forms all the time. Some years ago, I was using a TOPS-20 system that, according to most of its users, has the friendliest user interface anywhere. As soon as I located a macro language for that environment, I proceeded to create UNIX equivalents: partly so I could use the same commands everywhere, and partly because only UNIX has a standard "ls -R" command that displays names in a meaningful compact form. (Obviously it was a powerful macro language that would let you recreate that output format.) I never say the UNIX user interface is the best. I do say I prefer it to any other I have tried, and I have tried them all: VMS, MS-DOS, CP/M, TOPS-20, RT-11, RSX-11, TRS-DOS/LDOS, Macintosh (ugh), VM/CMS (gave up very quickly). Lack of convenient I/O redirection eliminates all but a handful of these, lack of a structured command language from the keyboard eliminates all the rest. (The Macintosh is eliminated even before we start, because it doesn't have any command language at all, just cute little pictures that won't let me do something as trivial as copy one disk to another without gymnastic gyrations. Not will it let me compile and run a C program that is impertinent enough to expect argc and argv to be supplied by the operating environment.) Since only UNIX was left on the list, I soon memorized its few essential commands (cp, cat, mv, rm, cd, mkdir, rmdir, ls). It takes about a day to do this, so anybody who complains about them beyond the first day probably has a taco-flavored tortilla chip on his shoulder. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (09/02/88)
In article <3836@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: ...In article <797@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: ...>Hi, Ward. You probably find those easier to remember because you have ...>been using them since CP/M 1.4 - at least. I wonder which would be ...>easier to remember if you had started with UNIX. ... ...Good point. Thanks! ...(The Macintosh is eliminated ...even before we start, because it doesn't have any command language at ...all, just cute little pictures that won't let me do something as ...trivial as copy one disk to another without gymnastic gyrations. Nor ...will it let me compile and run a C program that is impertinent enough ...to expect argc and argv to be supplied by the operating environment.) Good grief!! Is there no way to get a command line?? Pete
bell@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mike Bell) (09/02/88)
In article <799@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >In article <3836@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >...In article <797@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >...>Hi, Ward. You probably find those easier to remember because you have >...>been using them since CP/M 1.4 - at least. I wonder which would be >...>easier to remember if you had started with UNIX. >... >...Good point. > >Thanks! > >...(The Macintosh is eliminated >...even before we start, because it doesn't have any command language at >...all, just cute little pictures that won't let me do something as >...trivial as copy one disk to another without gymnastic gyrations. Nor >...will it let me compile and run a C program that is impertinent enough >...to expect argc and argv to be supplied by the operating environment.) > >Good grief!! Is there no way to get a command line?? > >Pete OK everyone, how about we stop Mac Bashing. I am a programmer who works with both machines, and I think that the comments made above are pretty biased. On the Mac, you dont need a command line. If you want to open document Y created with program x, you point to the icon of the document and open it. The program that created it is automatically invoked. You dont need a command line; the operating system takes care of it. The comment about "cute little pictures" seems kind of funny; what is the presentation manager (nice business like phrase) if not a copy of the Mac OS ? It seems that everyone who bashes the Mac jumps on the OS/2 bandwagon without any second thoughts. The Mac II is a far more powerful machine than all but the most juiced-up PC compatible/ps-2. If you dont believe me, try this yourself -- benchmarks published in BYTE dont mean a thing. Each application uses a computer differently. I ported one of my larger C programs to the Mac II from a compaq 386 , and found a FOUR times improvement in speed (5 minutes vs. 20). It was heavily math intensive finite element analysis, and both machines were using their respective co-processors. In some instances, there are advantages to using one machine over another. But, offhand dismissals of the Mac , seemingly without any understanding of the Mac OS we could all do without. Michael Bell Bell@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
maxwell@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert Maxwell) (09/03/88)
In article <1185@plx.UUCP>, walt@plx.UUCP (Walt Novinger ) writes: > In article <1028@mtund.ATT.COM> smc@mtund.UUCP (Steven Casagrande) writes: > >In article <9837@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: > >>Ward says that he likes Unix but prefers the command names of DOS > >>because they are less cryptic. > >> > >Who cares if the Unix commands are cryptic? It is relatively easy > >to write script files to "change" the name of ls, cp, rm, etc. > > > Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be > mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a > link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, > simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". You will find a problem with this approach on some commands. For instance, cp, mv and ln are the same executable (look at the link count). The command relys on argv[0] to execute the correct sequence of opening, linking and unlinking the files. Linking cp to copy and then trying to execute the command "copy file1 file2" results in the following diagnostic message: "copy: command must be named cp|mv|ln--defaults to cp" I am sure you can find a number of commands that work the same way - /bin/sh and /bin/rsh are the same file as are the editors vi, ex and edit. If you use ksh, aliasing commands is simple, I usually use it to call a command using options that are inconvenient to type, ie: ll=ls -CF -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. M. Maxwell AT&T IMS | I speak for nobody- Maitland, FL ablnc!jezebel!bob | not even myself. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (09/03/88)
With regards to the crypticness of UNIX over MS-DOS, I have to stress that neither is more cryptic but UNIX is certainly more consistent. Consider that the most commonly used DOS commands are "dir", "copy", "erase", "mkdir", "rmdir", and "chdir". Of these, the latter are identical on both systems (except for the "md" and "rd" abbreviations in MS-DOS) so we can throw them out. UNIX counterparts are "ls", "cp", and "rm". For LiSt, CoPy, and ReMove. The first and third letter of each command. Simple once you know it and "list" makes more sense than "directory" to most of the beginners that I've dealt with. You might note that the "first and third" rule is consistent amoung a LOT of other UNIX commands, but most users never touch them. For more exaustive commands, MS-DOS gets worse exponentially while UNIX is fairly consistent amoung the standard commands. Want to copy a whole directory tree? "cp -r". Remove one? "rm -r". Under MS-DOS the functions are "xcopy /s" and "not available on the base system". UNIX has lots more options, but if you don't use them it doesn't matter if they're there or not. Once a user gets advanced enough to play with wildcards, MS-DOS just looses it. It took me awhile to figure out that cp *1.bat would ignore the 1 altogether, which is counterintuitive at best. Add to it the fact that few MS-DOS programs actually accept wildcards and what you have is a mess. Now I have to give MS-DOS some points for simplicity overall, but not many considering its lack of power. Almost anybody can figure out "CHKDSK", while I've been daunted by "fsck"'s output more than once. Considering that the basic user should never have to deal with fsck, though, this is not a serious problem. I think the only people that have a valid complaint are those who must use both systems, as I do. Since several of the MS-DOS commands are UNIX-ish, sometimes this leads to confusion. It would have been nicer if they'd either followed the format or thrown it away completely. Before I go, Bell Labs conducted a test to see if varying the user interface changed anything. It had (at least) three cases: mnemonic commands, nonsense commands, and mixed up mnemonics (mnemonic commands that did things other than what was obvious, like "cp" meaning "rm"). The learning curves were virtually identical. Of course if you'd watched secretaries learn IBM System/36 OCL and also learn MS-DOS, you'd have seen it yourself -- I have, and it took about the same amount of banging it into their heads before they got the idea. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (09/04/88)
> OK everyone, how about we stop Mac Bashing. I am a programmer who works >with both machines, and I think that the comments made above are pretty >biased. On the Mac, you dont need a command line. If you want to open document >Y created with program x, you point to the icon of the document and open it. >The program that created it is automatically invoked. You dont need a command >line; the operating system takes care of it. I think people can certainly be critical of the Macintosh and its interface without being labeled "bashers" immediately. While the nature of the original comment about the Mac was belittling (sp?) the person who was astonished that you cannot even get a command line echoes my own sentiments exactly. A user interface that concentrates solely on pictographs and menus badly constrains the power user and certainly hinders the intermediate level user. A few examples are in order to justify this statement: 1) Without a command line you lack even the most basic ability to do wildcards. This time saving feature comes in very handy when a particular directory (or "folder" if you prefer) contains 20+ files and cannot thus be shown all in one window at a time. A Mac user will go around in a multi-select/deleting frenzy where any command line user will simply say DEL *.C or RM *.c, etc. 2) Where is your ability to do filters on the Macintosh? Each filter must be a separate program complete with interface (slowing down the speed at which they are produced) and capabilities like redirection of input/output through filters is, as Monty Python says, "right-out". 3) Environment variables, script files (which are NOT equivalent to files describing a series of mouse clicks and key presses), and programming environments all suffer under the Macintosh environment. In my opinion (and that's all it is), the direction that both Open Look and the Amiga took is the correct one. Give the user a graphical interface that will make learning easy, make execution of simple commands effortless, and get the hell out of the way when a command line is wanted. John Munsch "People don't just go around wantonly displaying scientific data." -- Posting in comp.graphics
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (09/05/88)
> OK everyone, how about we stop Mac Bashing. I am a programmer who works >with both machines, and I think that the comments made above are pretty >biased. On the Mac, you dont need a command line. If you want to open document >Y created with program x, you point to the icon of the document and open it. >The program that created it is automatically invoked. You dont need a command >line; the operating system takes care of it. But you DO need a command line if you want to do what YOU want to do, rather than what the brain-damaged Finder wants to do! I often want to create a file Y with program x (an editor) and then compile it with program Z (the compiler) and maybe even give it to program K (Kermit) to send off to the Usenet as an example. I tried using a Mac and found it EXTREMELY frustrating. On rare occasions, point and click is nice- on MS-DOS you just invoke a point and click shell (many are available). Is there a full Unix or MS-DOS style shell for the Mac, that allows you to throw the finder in the trash (oh saying that about a Mac is really fun!). There wasn't when I tried it about two years ago. Doug McDonald
mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) (09/06/88)
I love the irony of it: an MSDOS shell for the MAC!!!! What a great product-to-be. Michael R. Volow 919 286 0411, page beeper #550 Dept. of Psychiatry mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP Durham Vet Admin Medical Center Durham, N.C. 27705
jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) (09/06/88)
> Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be > mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a > link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, > simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". > From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted, > even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space > is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used). > Be careful of which command names you use. In the previous case you would lose the use of the UN*X 'dir' command. Jim Jackson Michigan Bell
yap@mill.me.toronto.edu (09/07/88)
In article <6414@chinet.UUCP> ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen) writes: >I just have to comment to Robert Snyder's #20140 in which he comments on >John Dvorak's ignorance of DOS for saying that Unix(tm) machines need >a user friendly shell, while DOS doesn't, then Robert's comment "What >does he think Command.COM is". > I am a heavy DOS user, and casual Unix user, and I think "type" is >easier to remember than "cat"; "dir" easier than "ls", or even "dir /w" >than "lc". If you think that command.com provides a user freindly shell then I have to conclude that you are deluded or deranged. Either that, or you are ignorant of what a real shell can do for you, helping to increase your productivity instead of just acting as a gateway to your application programs. If you're so fervently attached to your dos commands simply include the following in your ".login", alias type 'cat' alias dir 'ls' > I like Unix. I "appreciate it" for the environment it fulfills, but >I really can't see 10 million PC users preferring the cryptic Unix >commands to the more simple DOS commands. Speaking as one of those 10 million, I don't find unix any more cryptic than dos. In fact, due to the man facility, unix should be much easier for new users to pick up. Personally, the thought of working in the dos environment again makes me retch and grimace. > P.S. there's NOTHING wrong with cryptic - depending upon the USER - I >use APL, and PMATE is my favorite editor AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, in >which [S;$@X=1^@X>31^-M9IQR0L] is a program to scan an assembly source >program, and move any comment lines which aren't starting in column 1 >but which start left of column 32, over so the ';' is in column 32. Why should you have to go into an editor to do that? Next time you're on a unix system type, "man sed". ${HOME:- \ Davin Yap, | yap@me.toronto.edu (for smart mailers\ Dept. of Mechanical Engineering| uunet!me.toronto.edu!yap (uucp\ University of Toronto, | yap@me.toronto.cdn (ean x.400\ Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 | yap%me.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa\ (416) 978-6443 | yap@me.utoronto (bitnet}
pete@wlbr.EATON.COM (Pete Lyall) (09/07/88)
In article <2684@mibte.UUCP> jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) writes:
-- Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be
-- mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a
-- link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance,
-- simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir".
-- From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted,
-- even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space
-- is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used).
--
- Be careful of which command names you use. In the previous case
-you would lose the use of the UN*X 'dir' command.
-
- Jim Jackson
- Michigan Bell
-
Eh? Someone slip a 'dir' command into Unix while I wasn't looking, or
did your system administrator inadvertantly set up an alias between
'dir' and some flavor of 'ls'?
Pete
--
Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group VP)| DELPHI: OS9UGVP | Eaton Corp.(818)-706-5693
Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 Sysop) OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud)
Internet: pete@wlbr.eaton.com UUCP: {hacgate,jplgodo,voder}!wlbr!pete spcecdt@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Space Cadet) (09/07/88)
In article <5717@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes: > > >I love the irony of it: an MSDOS shell for the MAC!!!! What a >great product-to-be. > >Michael R. Volow 919 286 0411, page beeper #550 I just finally tested DOS's ctty command by putting my roommate's Mac on com1: and making it the console. It worked perfectly, though typing DOS commands into the Mac seemed faintly sacrilegious... -- > John H. DuBois III # spcecdt@ucscb.ucsc.EDU ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!spcecdt <
drew@geac.UUCP (Drew Sullivan) (09/07/88)
A PC-shell for the Mac, who needs it. If you get a copy of the MPW shell (Macintosh Programmers Workshop) you get a shell that blows the unix shells out of the water for power (given single tasking :-<), Let alone DOS's next to useless command.com. The MPW shell is command line oriented but has multiple windows. It will execute any line that you can point to. You can cut/paste under program control (Files can be mapped to window, which can have a region defined, where you can apply all of the unix like commands to). You can dynamically add menus, and run canned commands from menus. (I never really bothered). The shell has all of the Regular Expression support of the unix shells and unix ed. It has all of the flow control support of the unix shells and you can extend it via shell scripts or C programs. Would I recommend it. To any one who wants a shell, yes. To your average user No. (The average user doesn't need or want it. They might have to learn someting.) -- -- Drew Sullivan <drew@lethe.uucp> +1 416 225-1592 Toronto, Ontario, Canada
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (09/08/88)
In article <1185@plx.UUCP> walt@plx.UUCP (Walt Novinger (sales)) writes: | Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be | mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a | link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, | simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". | From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted, | even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space | is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used). I think you're going to want to do it using aliaii or shell functions, particularly the COPY. When someone types COPY subdir/A.DOC subdir/B.DOC they want to create a file called B.DOC which is a copy of the contents of A.DOC, and delete any current B.DOC. When they type COPY subdir/*.DOC they want to copy all .DOC files into the current directory. Since the UNIX name expansion causes both commands to look the same at the time the program gets them, I don't see any really safe way to duplicate the DOS syntax and get the expected result. If you never forget to say COPY subdir/*.DOC . it will work. Most of the other things can be done with an alias, although if you have functions you can add a bit of error checking as you go. If the user uses a \ instead of a / it may cause problems, depending where it happens. What you probably want is "dsh" the DOS shell, which is a different shell interface featuring weak, ugly commands, one per line. I've seen it around, and there was a version on _The Store_ for the unix-pc, although I'm not sure if that was a program or a set of ksh macros. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
tow@arisia.Xerox.COM (Rob Tow) (09/08/88)
In article <45900148@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >> OK everyone, how about we stop Mac Bashing. I am a programmer who works >>with both machines, and I think that the comments made above are pretty >>biased. On the Mac, you dont need a command line. If you want to open document >>Y created with program x, you point to the icon of the document and open it. >>The program that created it is automatically invoked. You dont need a command >>line; the operating system takes care of it. >But you DO need a command line if you want to do what YOU want to do, rather >than what the brain-damaged Finder wants to do! I often want to create >a file Y with program x (an editor) and then compile it with program >Z (the compiler) and maybe even give it to program K (Kermit) to send >off to the Usenet as an example. I tried using a Mac and found it >EXTREMELY frustrating. On rare occasions, point and click is nice- >on MS-DOS you just invoke a point and click shell (many are available). >Is there a full Unix or MS-DOS style shell for the Mac, that allows >you to throw the finder in the trash (oh saying that about a Mac is >really fun!). There wasn't when I tried it about two years ago. > >Doug McDonald This subject has been bashed to death. The True Believers on both sides will never budge. Speaking as one who has done extensive programming on both machines - *this year*, not two or n years ago - I must say that both machines/environments have *infelicities*. So does the Dorado I am writing this on. So does the room full of SUN-4 workstations down the hallway. All of these are tools. In some ways they compete. In others they are complementary. Why do you think we have *all* of them in our lab? Lets resolve to keep this newsgroup true to its purpose of sharing *useful* information! I have long noticed that the signal-to-noise ratio for this newsgroup is one of the highest of all the groups - lets not change now. By the way, the example given above is bogus - I do interprogram file exchange of exactly that sort all the time on Macintosh computers. Of course, these are running Multifinder with multiple megabytes of memory... But consider the limitations of the original small memory PC (with a cassette tape interface, yet!). Enough said. Sigh. --- Rob Tow Member Research Staff Electronic Document Lab Xerox PARC 3333 Coyote Hill Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 (415)-494-4087
jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) (09/08/88)
In article <23064@wlbr.EATON.COM>, pete@wlbr.EATON.COM (Pete Lyall) writes: > In article <2684@mibte.UUCP> jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) writes: > -- Why write script files? Seems to me that most *IX commands can be > -- mapped nearly 1:1 with DOS (e.g. ls:dir, cp:copy). Simply create a > -- link to perform the mapping. To link a dir command to ls, for instance, > -- simply become su and give the command "ln /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/dir". > -- From then on, typing "dir *" will list the current directory (sorted, > -- even!),. the advantage of this approach is that no extra disk space > -- is used for a script (though I *think* one inode may be used). > -- > - Be careful of which command names you use. In the previous case > -you would lose the use of the UN*X 'dir' command. > - > - Jim Jackson > - Michigan Bell > - > > Eh? Someone slip a 'dir' command into Unix while I wasn't looking, or > did your system administrator inadvertantly set up an alias between > 'dir' and some flavor of 'ls'? > > Pete > > -- You're right. Seems this command was a local command that just contains "ls -xFb $*". But my point is still valid, 'type' exists on both systems and yet have completely different uses. Just be careful when trying to improve either system by combining your favorite commands from the other. Jim Jackson
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (09/08/88)
In article <9861.1988Sep6.15:40:23@mill.me.toronto.edu> yap@mill.me.UUCP (Davin Yap) writes:
... Why should you have to go into an editor to do that? Next time
... you're on a unix system type, "man sed".
Uh, what do you think that 'sed' is?
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division ...!att!jonlab!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (09/09/88)
In article <9861.1988Sep6.15:40:23@mill.me.toronto.edu> yap@mill.me.UUCP (Davin Yap) writes: >In article <6414@chinet.UUCP> ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen) writes: > If you think that command.com provides a user freindly shell > then I have to conclude that you are deluded or deranged. Either agreed. Commands that won't take multiple arguments? Gib mir ein break. Not to mention that wildcards under unix WORK, while under msdos they most certainly don't. Match *fo?b* on your pc sometime. >> I like Unix. I "appreciate it" for the environment it fulfills, but >>I really can't see 10 million PC users preferring the cryptic Unix >>commands to the more simple DOS commands. Karel the Robot is even simpler than DOS, and you can do even less with it. >>use APL, and PMATE is my favorite editor AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, in >>which [S;$@X=1^@X>31^-M9IQR0L] is a program to scan an assembly source > Why should you have to go into an editor to do that? Next time > you're on a unix system type, "man sed". Of course, REAL editors are written in TECO, in which you can write a relocating linker. . . . . . . .. . -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad
sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu (fred sullivan) (09/09/88)
In article <3836@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >equivalents such as "show quota", "show default" and "set default". I >rather like saying "ls" instead of "dir" because it's 67% less >typing :-) and I can say "ls" on all systems I use if I define the That 33% less typing, Rahul. Personally, I think that all this argument about command names is a lot of nonsense. As people have pointed out, commands can always be renamed (in Unix). Unix is wonderful because 1) it has io redirection 2) it has pipelines -- real pipelines, not fake pipelines like MSDOS 3) it has an unmatched set of utilities -- from the mundane pr and fmt to the exotic awk, lex and yacc 4) there is an AMAZING amount of good, free software available -- the unfortunate thing is that a lot of it won't run on toy machines (e.g. GNU Emacs, the Gnu C Compiler, and X-Windows) 5) machines with completely different architectures made by different vendors talk to each other -- conveniently -- using tcp/ip, uucp, nfs (of course these things are beginning to show up elsewhere) Unix also has its problems, but don't try to sell me anything else. I only use an MSDOS machine because someone offered to buy me one if I would write some software for them (if I could make THAT decision again...) Fred Sullivan SUNY at Binghamton Dept. Math. Sciences Binghamton, NY 13903 sullivan@marge.math.binghamton.edu First you make a roux!