12 Dec
2011
12 Dec
'11
11:29 a.m.
On 12 December 2011 16:07, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
I was going to start trying to reply to this until I got to the last
line, when I realised that you weren't here for the hunting, as the
saying goes. (http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/1465.html for those
unfamiliar with the joke.)
I realise it's an unusual and unpopular view, but personally, I prefer
the DOS/Win9x/NT command line to the Unix one. OK, true, the Unix one
has lots more tools, many of them very useful, but the MICROS~1
actually tends to be more useful to me. I am sure Unix wildcards and
regexps are immensely useful, but generally, for the stuff I want to
do as a sysadmin and general support guy, I find the MS versions just
deliver with a lot less work.
Yes, this does imply that even after some 22y of working with Unix
boxen, I've not really grokked the shell and I probably never will -
but I think that also makes some strong points about how accessible
the Unix shell is.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
They work inasmuch as you can give files a name
with a dot in it and
some text after the dot and it's a valid name.
I'm not sure what your point is here. that's the intended design.
When I'm saying it handles it poorly is that,
from the POV of the
shell, it's just a filename, it contains no information. Files called
something-dot-foo can't readily be handled separately from
something-dot-bar.
since when? and why not? Most of us have no problem with this.
In most modern Unix GUIs, you can sort by file
type, grab all the
JPEGs and move them to another folder, say - or even all the image
files, all the JPEGs and PNGs and BMPs or whetever. In the shell,
that's harder, requiring a serious understanding of the Unix wildcard
mechanisms and possibly, as illustrated by some of the replies to my
earlier post about log files, writing a short script.
you switch back and forth between how the GUI handles files and how the shell handles
files,which one are you actually having a problem with?
the GUI can easily distinguish between x.foo and x.bar named files.then again, so can the
shell.
a file extension is not a file "type"extensions as file types is a human
fallacy, not a machine limitation.I regularly use files without any type of extension at
all, quite easily.
also, which shell are we talking about? c-shell? korn shell? bash? zsh?some shells have
"extensions" that can differentiate files based on what's after the dot,some
refer to the system configurations on what those files are.some don't care what a file
is called or what it's "extension" is.
the last type is the most correct, what comes after the dot is not truly an
"extension"it's just part of the file name, and should be treated as such.
the days of the 8 dot 3 file naming and typing conventions are long gone.
It might outrage or dismay the old hands, but
progress often does.
perhaps you should go back to the teletype.
I suspect most Mac users barely know their
machines have a shell and
never, ever use it. If Ubuntu gets to that point as well, that will be
just fine - so long as people can do what they want and need to do.
The GUI is for
people who don't know how to use a computer.These people should also be forced to use
"driverless-cars"