17 Dec
2011
17 Dec
'11
10:34 a.m.
On 17/12/11 1:30 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Don't tell _me_. My whole side of the thread has been arguing the same
thing, and what you replied to was mild sarcasm. Because Liam wrote:
> I have THE
definitive solution for the original poster:
> WRITE A NEW SHELL. It would be the easiest way to get DOS-like filename
> handling capabilities with Unix.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Toby Thain wrote:
No, no. It's something Unix *cannot do*. You
have to change the
operating system.
No, no. It's something Unix *can do*. What do YOU mean "have to
change the operating system"?? All of the file manipulation crap that you
are talking about, such as renaming and wildcards can be done by a program
running on Unix. Parsing and DOING "RENAME *.LOG *.OLD" is NOT a big
deal. Well, /strictly/, yes, but since I have never seen or
heard of
a single UNIX or Linux shell that does what I consider to be the
sane or right thing, I think it's fair to say that it's an
attribute of the OS as a whole.
and
I think writing a small program to do what would take
a single command
on almost any other CLI OS I have ever used illustrates my point
rather well...!
(!!) Actually it illustrates that Unix can be made to do exactly what
you want, instead of having to rely forever on what came in the box. But
that was probably already addressed in remote parts of this thread.
--T