Day,
Arrrr, matey, them's fightin' words!
> No. this is a _SHELL_ Garry.
--
We've got a vocabulary glitch. In the world
of *nix, a "shell" is the command processor,
essentially the COMMAND.COM of *nix. There
has actually been an alternate command shell
for DOS (remember 4DOS?).
You could to a *nix shell that essentially
behaved like DOS, but there are issues like
what *nix programs expect from the shell
and those provisions in the shell for known
kernel behaviors. It would have compromises.
> In DRDOS that's called a TSR;
--
Without going into it in any depth, there
is a significant difference between a TSR
and running a program in the background.
The 'daemon' is closer to the TSR.
> Fine, let those who feel that way, and
> worry about that run the risk of missing
> functionality that nix offers they might
> need. Mind offering some examples?
--
See, now there ya go again with that "making
sense" thing. How am I supposed to conduct
an emotional, unreasoned argument with you
making sense?!
Let's, for a moment, examine why one would
contemplate moving from DOS to *nix. In
no particular order there are things like
1) kernel & file system features:
multitasking (lets you run things in the
background), multi-user (lets more than
one person use the box at the same time),
security (one person can keep others from
messing with his stuff), integrated memory
management (virtual memory), inter-process
communication (messaging), built-in network
features (including the internet),
2) command shell features:
programmability (lots more stuff than one
finds in DOS batch files), provisions for
working with multiple & background processes
(kernel knowledge), superior redirection
(both stderr and stdout, together and
separately), superior command line editing,
3) power tools features:
superior text processing tools, programmed
process scheduling (more kernel knowledge),
generally tools that take advantage of all
the stuff available in the kernel.
So some provision would need to be made to
bring the new DOS immigrant to awareness
of the features now available to him.
It might be useful to have a sort of DOS
command converter. Say our new friend
finds himself in a Bash (or Korn/C Shell)
environment. He types something like
"dos2bash 'type myfile.txt'", and it
spits back something like
"display file contents, possible commands:
'cat myfile.txt' or 'more myfile.txt'"
This way the new user is using real *nix,
but has his "training wheels." Over time
he would need the help less and less. The
inconvenience of the extra typing would
provide incentive to make the transition.
If there is no motivating pain, chances are
he won't make the effort.
<anecdote>
I lived in Denmark for several years. For
the first few years I simply spoke English
and managed to get by because most of the
population there also spoke English.
I could have taken advantage of this good
fortune (everyone was a dictionary) to
learn their language but didn't.
In my last two years there, I took an extra
job cleaning offices. My extra boss didn't
speak any English beyond 'hello'. I now
*had* to learn his language if I was to be
able to function on the job.
Within 30 days, I had a good working grasp
of conversational Danish. Had I stayed, I
would certainly have become fully literate
in Danish, but as it was, at least I no
longer irritated everyone with whom I had
to speak. Og det er godt, fordi, som de
siger, "Dansk er ikke et sprog, det er en
hals sygdom." (*see below)
When it was too easy to *not* change, I
didn't. When *not* changing started to
hurt, I made the change.
</anecdote>
Regards,
Garry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<
*translation:
And that is good, because, as they say, Danish
is not a language, it is a throat sickness.
>>
----- Quoted Material -----
Date sent: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:55:19 -0500
From: Day Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "GarryH (k@w)" wrote:
>>>
>>> Day:
>>>
>>>> I dont see why someone did not design a nix
>>>> shell with the same name commands doing the
>>>> same thing as they do in dos.
>>>
>>> Could it be because *nix was here first?
>>> And after you wrote a shell that treated ''
>>> (backslash) like '/' (slash), and responded to
>>> 'dir' with formatting familiar to DOS users,
>>> and changed the handling of '*' wildcards so
>>> that '*rc' and '*whatever*' no longer worked,
>>> would you then gut the shell logic so that
>>> looping and case structures no longer worked?
>
> No. this is a _SHELL_ Garry. You all who know
> how to use bash or whatever you like can stick
> with it. I'm suggesting something for old dos
> users who might like to try it.
>>
>>> And what would you do with all the extra
>>> commands and tools that "aren't familiar"
>>> to a DOS user? Would you just blow off
>>> things like 'command -switches args &' for
>>> running a program in the background?
>
> In DRDOS that's called a TSR; maybe I want
> it to catch a fax while I'm doing something
> else? But if there are, and there prolly
> are functions that dos dont have, then fine,
> put them in the dos version shell.
>>
>>> You can alias some of the DOS commands,
>>> but if you really want DOS behavior,
>>> then I guess your shell should be dosemu
>>> (or DOSemu, or DosEmu, or whatever).
>
> No I aint that picky Garry. If I got files
> on the drive, I dont care all that much
> whether the jpg or .pdf or whatever is
> ext2, 16bit, or 32 bit dos partitions.
> all I care about is whether I can access
> them.
>
>>> My main problem with a "dos" shell for
>>> *nix is that it would tend to lead a user
>>> along thinking paths that are not really
>>> appropriate in *nix. The Unix family
>>> really is quite another beast. It isn't
>>> the differences that trip you up, it's
>>> the similarities -- DOS is a bastard
>>> child of Unix -- and the expectations
>>> created by the similarities.
>
> Fine, let those who feel that way, and
> worry about that run the risk of missing
> functionality that nix offers they might
> need. Mind offering some examples?
>
> What I am struck by, is that this wheel
> does not yet seemta be invented. Demanding
> that everyone learn the nix shell the way
> you want them to is fine, which is why
> I've read windoz users who looked at a nix
> distribution and said fuck you. They were
> just utterly clueless. Had there been
> 'training wheels' there'd be a lot more
> nix users. which might, or might not, be
> a bad thing. I kinda like the way the
> steep learning curve keeps out the riff
> raff. It's kinda like the old BBS days.
>
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
