9 Aug
2001
9 Aug
'01
7:52 p.m.
On August 9, Carlos Murillo wrote:
>DCL is a very complete command language.
There's a lot that can be
>done directly that require external programs in Unix shells.
...
By the way, I think that requiring external programs
in Unix isn't
necessarily a disadvantage, as long as such programs are standard in
every U'x. And many are, thanks to POSIX.
You're not familiar with the overhead associated with fork()/vfork(),
are you Carlos.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Laurel, MD
9 Aug
9 Aug
8:16 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated:
On August 9, Carlos Murillo wrote:
Depends upon the Unix system. Under Linux, fork() is actually a front end
to clone(), which is used to make both threads or processes (and even stuff
in between)---it really depends upon what is copied and what is shared
between the parent and child.
Thread support under Unix (pick your system) is dreadful (and no, pthreads
isn't a solution (icky icky p-tang!)). Then again, if it wasn't in Unix V6,
then it's not supported well at all!
-spc (And can you explain the insanely different command line parameters
to ls (typical Unix command line), find and dd? All three, I think
are POSIX to some degree 8-)
>DCL is a very complete command language.
There's a lot that can be
>done directly that require external programs in Unix shells.
...
By the way, I think that requiring external
programs in Unix isn't
necessarily a disadvantage, as long as such programs are standard in
every U'x. And many are, thanks to POSIX.
You're not familiar with the overhead associated with fork()/vfork(),
are you Carlos. 
10 Aug
10 Aug
3:32 a.m.
At 01:16 AM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
-spc (And can you explain the insanely different
command line parameters
to ls (typical Unix command line), find and dd? All three, I think
are POSIX to some degree 8-)
Mhh, care to highlight a particularly nasty difference in ls? (dd I know).
When in doubt, use sed. Except for a certain bug in the HPUX 10.20
release, it behaves quite uniformly across the board.
I brought the issue of interoperability on board because I like to be able
to use different unixes w/o too many different quirks; however, we
started comparing DCL vs. Unix shells. Interoperability is a moot issue
for DCL, of course. It is a higher standard that we're requiring
of Unix. Perhaps we should stick to one flavor of Unix when making
the comparisons? (I know, I'm taking a step back from my former position;
you guys are too tough :-) ).
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
10:35 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Carlos Murillo once stated:
At 01:16 AM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
What I was trying to say is that `ls' uses single letter options preceeded
by a dash (-l -a -F), `find' uses full words with a dash (-print -follow)
and `dd' uses words/abreviations without dashes (if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
count=45) and all three are found on every Unix system (at least, all the
ones I've used and I've used a fair number of them).
-spc (And can you explain the insanely different
command line parameters
to ls (typical Unix command line), find and dd? All three, I think
are POSIX to some degree 8-)
Mhh, care to highlight a particularly nasty difference in ls? (dd I know).
When in doubt, use sed. Except for a certain bug in the HPUX 10.20
release, it behaves quite uniformly across the board. I brought the issue of interoperability on board
because I like to be able
to use different unixes w/o too many different quirks; however, we
started comparing DCL vs. Unix shells. Interoperability is a moot issue
for DCL, of course. It is a higher standard that we're requiring
of Unix. Perhaps we should stick to one flavor of Unix when making
the comparisons? (I know, I'm taking a step back from my former position;
you guys are too tough :-) ).
I am talking about a single flavor of Unix 8-)
-spc (Oh, then there's the GNU utilities which can also take full
words preceeded by two dashes ... )
4:27 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Carlos Murillo once
stated:
If I remember correctly, dd was originally intended to emulate the dd
command on OS 360, so it doesn't look like any of the other Unix
commands. Originally, dd was used to deal with media produced by
other operating systems, which I think was the motivation for modeling
it after the dd command on OS 360. I recall reading this in the V6
manuals, so if anyone has easy access to a V6 they could check this.
At 01:16 AM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
What I was trying to say is that `ls' uses single letter options preceeded
by a dash (-l -a -F), `find' uses full words with a dash (-print -follow)
and `dd' uses words/abreviations without dashes (if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
count=45) and all three are found on every Unix system (at least, all the
ones I've used and I've used a fair number of them).
-spc (And can you explain the insanely different
command line parameters
to ls (typical Unix command line), find and dd? All three, I think
are POSIX to some degree 8-)
Mhh, care to highlight a particularly nasty difference in ls? (dd I know).
When in doubt, use sed. Except for a certain bug in the HPUX 10.20
release, it behaves quite uniformly across the board.
3:15 a.m.
At 12:52 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Dave wrote:
You're not familiar with the overhead associated
with fork()/vfork(),
are you Carlos.
Good point, though some Unixes seem faster than others in this regard...
I don't usually write sh jobs that take more than a few minutes. Perhaps
if I did I'd change my mind about DCL.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
8377
days inactive
8378
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
mark＠cs.ualberta.ca -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
spc＠conman.org