steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve HASTINGS) (06/06/91)
In article <140@grot.ca41.csd.mot.com> brian@grot.ca41.csd.mot.com (Brian Smithson) writes: >How does [Thompson Toolkit] compare with MKS in terms of price, "completeness", >and faithfulness to UNIX (to the extent possible in MSDOS-land)? >And which UNIX? System V or BSD? Which shell(s) does it have? MKS Utilities attempt a total and perfect emulation of UNIX, to the maximum extent possible, even if it interferes with usability. This is both a good and bad thing. IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating "c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX compatible and therefore desirable. I say that if I had meant "c:/" I would have typed "c:/" instead of "c:" and it is a pain to use MKS when you work with networks and can have long paths on a half dozen drives or more. Thompson Toolkit attempts to blend the best of the UNIX and PC environments, and IMHO it succeeds well. It allows you to type pathnames with either forward slashes or backward slashes, or any combination, but it still lets you use backslashes as escape characters (like UNIX does). It allows you to use the arrow keys to recall old commands and edit them, or use the C Shell '!' syntax ("!v" for the last command starting with 'v') or even a combination of both. I especially like the way Thompson Toolkit allows you to type forward slashes in paths being passed to other programs: it can fix up the command line before it spawns the other program, converting forward slashes to backslashes and dashes to forward slashes. This is better than globally altering the SWITCHAR setting under DOS, since it works with all programs and not just the ones that call DOS to parse their command lines. (It does not work *inside* programs. This limitation doesn't bother me.) Thompson Toolkit costs less than MKS, and much less than the Hamilton C Shell. MKS and Hamilton have features missing from Thompson Toolkit, such as shell functions. MKS and Thompson Toolkit are both available under both DOS and OS/2; Hamilton C Shell is OS/2 only. I like being able to write shell scripts that run equally well under DOS or OS/2, so I am not interested in Hamilton C Shell at this time. The Thompson Toolkit is a hacked version of a Bourne Shell. It has many extensions from C Shell and some from the Korn Shell. It is compatible enough that I have used it to unpack shar archives. It has C Shell style aliases, and a future version will have shell functions. The AWK product, available at extra cost, is an outstanding version of AWK. The AWK Development Kit includes an AWK compiler that makes standalone .EXE files that run under either DOS or OS/2. Compiled AWK programs can handle up to 4 megabytes of data at a time, doing their own virtual memory (swapping data onto your hard disk) as necessary. Technical support from Thompson Automation has been outstanding. The author of the software, Pat Thompson, often answers questions. Prices: Thompson Toolkit for DOS $149 Thompson Toolkit for DOS and OS/2 $179 add $50 to get AWK add $150 to get the AWK Development Kit (including compiler) You can order it from: Thompson Automation 5616 SW Jefferson Portland, OR 97221 503/224-1639 I have no connection with Thompson Automation, except that I am a satisfied customer who has used the Toolkit for years. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) (06/14/91)
[]
"MKS Utilities attempt a total and perfect emulation of UNIX
... IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating
"c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX
compatible and therefore desirable."
To us died-in-the-wool Unix experts who don't know much MSDOS and
aren't very interested in learning, the adherence of MKS to the
"perfect emulation" goal is highly attractive. I, for one, am
delighted to have "c:foo" treated the same as "c:\foo".
Different strokes for different folks -- the essence of a free market.
-=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
(uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (06/14/91)
andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) writes: >[] > "MKS Utilities attempt a total and perfect emulation of UNIX > ... IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating > "c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX > compatible and therefore desirable." >To us died-in-the-wool Unix experts who don't know much MSDOS and >aren't very interested in learning, the adherence of MKS to the >"perfect emulation" goal is highly attractive. I, for one, am >delighted to have "c:foo" treated the same as "c:\foo". Could someone explain to me why it is more "Unix-ish" to have C:foo mean C:\foo instead of C:.\foo? The later is obviously what the user intends; the former is just a bug. -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) (06/14/91)
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes: >Could someone explain to me why it is more "Unix-ish" to have C:foo mean >C:\foo instead of C:.\foo? The later is obviously what the user >intends; the former is just a bug. >-- iThe latter is *not* obviously what this user intends; it is about 50% either way. The result is that about 50% of the time I have to edit the command and re-execute, at which time the Korn shell command line editing feature is greatly appreciated. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 EMAIL: feustel@netcom.com or feustel@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun14.031553.7236@midway.uchicago.edu> Doug Dougherty writes: >Could someone explain to me why it is more "Unix-ish" to have C:foo mean >C:\foo instead of C:.\foo? The later is obviously what the user >intends; the former is just a bug. It's only obvious to a DOS user. For those that don't know how the unix file system works, there is no concept of drives. All physical drives including hard disks, floppies etc. are simply mounted as a directory on the primary file system. For example if I have a file system on a floppy with the file "dir1/dir2/file" that I would like to access then I mount the floppy somewhere on my system. Perhaps I mount it in my home directory (which BTW is already on a mounted file system) on a directory called mnt. Now the file name I want can be referred to as /usr/darcy/mnt/dir1/dir2/file. Now, how does MKS deal with drives while making it look as Unixish as possible? I don't know for sure but I suspect that they treat the various drives as mounted drives on the root and so the most logical way to deal with C:foo is as if /C/foo was typed where "C" is the mounted hard disk. Since Unix has the concept of current directory but not of current drive the concept of a "current" position on a directory that you are not currently in is counter-intuitive. It would be like trying to refer to "file" in the above example as /usr/darcy/mnt/file because the system somehow knows that mnt really means/mnt/dir1/dir2. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government! +1 416 424 2871 |
gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras) (06/14/91)
andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) writes: >[] > "MKS Utilities attempt a total and perfect emulation of UNIX > ... IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating > "c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX > compatible and therefore desirable." >To us died-in-the-wool Unix experts who don't know much MSDOS and >aren't very interested in learning, the adherence of MKS to the >"perfect emulation" goal is highly attractive. I, for one, am >delighted to have "c:foo" treated the same as "c:\foo". >Different strokes for different folks -- the essence of a free market. > -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) > (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) How curious. You must ahve interested in learning at one time, else you would not have become a Unix expert. Seriously, I'm a heavy MKS user and can tell you it's niether perfect Unix or DOS-friendly. Other than that I can't live without it. -gb-
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (06/14/91)
feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes: >valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes: >>Could someone explain to me why it is more "Unix-ish" to have C:foo mean >>C:\foo instead of C:.\foo? The later is obviously what the user >>intends; the former is just a bug. >iThe latter is *not* obviously what this user intends; it is about 50% >either way. The result is that about 50% of the time I have to edit >the command and re-execute, at which time the Korn shell command line >editing feature is greatly appreciated. I have yet to hear anyone cogently argue *why* inserting the backslash is someone more "Unixy". Forgetting completely for the moment how DOS works (although noting in passing that the lack of "drives" in Unix is something of an annoyance; it makes it impossible to have more than one current directory in Unix), please explain how the concept of "C:foo" should map to *anything* in Unix. Are you saying that in Unix, "foo" should be synonymous with "\foo" ? (Oops, er, I mean, "/foo") BTW, don't get me wrong; I'm not a DOS weenie; I grew up on Unix, after which DOS was a piece of cake. (I pity people who have to go the other way) But I couldn't resist the above... -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) (06/15/91)
In <1991Jun14.142925.20977@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: >In article <1991Jun14.031553.7236@midway.uchicago.edu> Doug Dougherty writes: >>Could someone explain to me why it is more "Unix-ish" to have C:foo mean >>C:\foo instead of C:.\foo? The later is obviously what the user >>intends; the former is just a bug. >It's only obvious to a DOS user. For those that don't know how the unix >file system works, there is no concept of drives. All physical drives >including hard disks, floppies etc. are simply mounted as a directory >on the primary file system. For example if I have a file system on a >floppy with the file "dir1/dir2/file" that I would like to access then >I mount the floppy somewhere on my system. Perhaps I mount it in my >home directory (which BTW is already on a mounted file system) on a >directory called mnt. Now the file name I want can be referred to as >/usr/darcy/mnt/dir1/dir2/file. As the concept of drives is DOS (TOPS-10, etc.), and has no meaning in Unix, it makes no sense NOT to use DOS conventions for C:foo. C:foo, C:/foo, and C:\foo have no meaning in Unix. -- 2165888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (06/17/91)
In article <72771@microsoft.UUCP>, steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve HASTINGS) writes: + IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating +"c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX compatible +and therefore desirable. I say that if I had meant "c:/" I would have +typed "c:/" instead of "c:" and it is a pain to use MKS when you work with +networks and can have long paths on a half dozen drives or more. *I guess it just depends on what you are used to.* I for one never got used to a device dependant current directory, so I always used full path names anyway. I find that it is useful to define shell variables for commonly accessed directories _and_ files, and as I use two character names for the commonest among them, that is only one character more than the supposed win of "c:". As for "unix compatible", it certainly seems to me that when you name the device you are naming the root directory of that device... +Technical support from Thompson Automation has been outstanding. The +author of the software, Pat Thompson, often answers questions. I can't say anything about the Tech. Support at MKS because I've never needed to use it. -Doug --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us Ok: {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp
sdawalt@valhalla.wright.edu (Shane Dawalt) (06/20/91)
In article <72771@microsoft.UUCP>, steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve HASTINGS) writes: > IMHO, MKS is unusable because they insist on treating > "c:foo" as identical to "c:/foo"; they claim this is more UNIX compatible > and therefore desirable. I say that if I had meant "c:/" I would have > typed "c:/" instead of "c:" and it is a pain to use MKS when you work with > networks and can have long paths on a half dozen drives or more. > I won't belabor the point about "c:" vs. "c:/". It seems to have been beaten around enough. I can comment on MKS's tech support; in one word: Super. I had a few problems with the first disks I received. MKS promptly sent me a new version within a week (must allow for UPS you know). I had another problem dealing with file management and disk organizers. MKS quickly explained the problem in a very knowledgable manner. Unfortunately, it was one of those problems where I was embarrased that I didn't think of the solution myself. All of this support was obtained through CompuServe mail. At the time, I didn't have net access and the phone would have been outrageous. I am very pleased with the MKS tools. I especially like the awk, sed and vi tools. They come in very handy. It's unfortunate not many MSDOS programs allow the '/' for path names. <sigh> Shane(); -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the keyboard of: email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu Shane A. Dawalt --------------------------------------------------------------------------