slocum@hi-csc.UUCP.UUCP (06/04/87)
Robert Reed writes: > ... Or why superficially AEGIS itself looks very much > like UNIX, with names changed to protect the guilty? When we first bought Apollos 5 years ago, the scuttlebutt I heard was that Apollo had gone back to the source of Unix, namely Multics, to based their OS on. The reason that Aegis looks like Unix is the same reason why humans look like monkeys: they have common ancestors. Frankly, I think Aegis command names make a lot more sense than Unix names. They are more regular, and with my experience with various computer systems, it was easier to guess what the command would be than when I started with Unix. Maybe I just think in terms of creating and deleting things, and changing their names, rather than making and removing things, and moving their names.
weaver@prls.UUCP (06/05/87)
Postings from people at Apollo have mentioned Aegis's
debt to Multics. However, early versions of the Aegis shell (sh)
were derived from the 'Software Tools' programs, from the book of
the same name by Kernighan and Plauger (1976), possibly with additions from
the Software Tools' Users Group.
If you are not familiar with this work, it is a programming text with
enough Ratfor programs to make a shell plus a good basic set of commands.
I presume the authors, both of Bell Labs and familiar with Unix, wanted a set
of programs to give any operating system that 'Unix-like' feel.
The Aegis command names seem more consistant than Unix commands, but they
are longer and still not English, a combination I do not appreciate. Also,
for the seasoned Unix user, commands with the same function but only
slightly different names (catf/cat, ld/ls, etc.) can be annoying. My
guess is they changed the names for fear that AT&T (who, after all,
owns Unix) might someday decide they owned the names 'cat', 'ls', and
so on and sue their socks off. Having done so (again guessing), the
did do a fair to good job in making the command names easier to learn
(at least for those starting from scratch).
I do like the attempt to have the same switches have the same meaning
wherever possible, and especially the greater availability of
regular expressions in command lines, e.g.,
$ chn {?*}.pas @1.p
will change all files ending in '.pas' to end in '.p'. I will keep an
Aegis shell around when using csh just to take advantage of this sort
of thing.
Michael Gordon Weaver Usenet: ...pyramid!prls!weaver
Signetics Microprocessor Division
811 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3409 (408) 991-3450
--
Michael Gordon Weaver Usenet: ...pyramid!prls!weaver
Signetics Microprocessor Division
811 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3409 (408) 991-3450bobr@zeus.UUCP (06/05/87)
In article <8706041341.AA01972@hi-csc.uucp> slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes: >Frankly, I think Aegis command names make a lot more >sense than Unix names. They are more regular, and with >my experience with various computer systems, it was >easier to guess what the command would be than when I >started with Unix. What are we talking about here? I've heard this complaint often, but seriously, this only amounts to a handful of commands: cd vs. wd changing directories chmod vs. edacl changing permissions cp vs. cpf copying files ln vs. bind linking programs ls vs. ld directory listing mkdir vs. ??? creating directories mv vs. ??? moving and renaming files rm vs. dlf, dlt deleting files rmdir vs. dlt deleting directories sh vs. sh command processor It sure doesn't seem to be worth the about of complaints I've seen -- Robert Reed, Tektronix CAE Systems Division, bobr@zeus.TEK
dfm@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM.UUCP (06/08/87)
(-: Apparently even experienced UNIX users find UNIX command names confusing :-)
Date: 5 Jun 87 20:20:54 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!bobr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Reed)
ln vs. bind linking programs
Don't you mean "ld vs. bind" for linking programs? Ln creates file system links,
like the Aegis crl command.
mkdir vs. ??? creating directories
??? = crd (create directory).
mv vs. ??? moving and renaming files
??? = chn (change name, applicable directories or files).ram-ashwin@YALE.ARPA (Ashwin Ram) (06/09/87)
> mv vs. ??? moving and renaming files > > ??? = chn (change name, applicable directories or files). Actually, MV corresponds to MVF (move file). As far as I can see, CHN is functionally a subset of MVF. Couple things that are inconsistent in this setup: 1, CHN doesn't accept the standard -R (replace) or -CHN (change name) flags that MVF and CPF do, with the result that you often have to use MVF anyway after CHN fails. 2, You use CPF to copy a file and CPT to copy a tree, but you use MVF to move both files and trees/directories (unless you specify a wildcarded name, in which case MVF moves the files that it matches but not the trees). Weird. Aside: One nice feature of Aegis wildcards that I swear by: the "..." specification that matches zero or more nested directories. One nice feature of Unix filespecs that Aegis would do well to adopt: the "~user" specification to refer to a user's home directory. Very useful in a cooperative environment. -- Ashwin Ram -- ARPA: Ram-Ashwin@yale UUCP: {decvax,linus,seismo}!yale!Ram-Ashwin BITNET: Ram@yalecs
thompson@calgary.UUCP (06/09/87)
In article <870608130041.3.DFM@WHITBY.PALLADIAN.COM>, dfm@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM (Don Morrison) writes: > Date: 5 Jun 87 20:20:54 GMT > From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!bobr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Reed) > > mv vs. ??? moving and renaming files > > ??? = chn (change name, applicable directories or files). (-: 'mvf' (move file) is handy too :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Thompson | Disclaimer? But...but... I didn't University of Calgary, | say anything....really! Well, Computer Science Department | nothing of any interest anyways. (403)220-3538 or (403)22-5109 (office) |