Y
YKhan
Called the Monad shell, or MSH. It's supposed to be similar to BASH on
Unix environments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050609_170105.html
Unix environments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050609_170105.html
YKhan said:Called the Monad shell, or MSH. It's supposed to be similar to BASH on
Unix environments.
Called the Monad shell, or MSH. It's supposed to be similar to BASH on
Unix environments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050609_170105.html
I just hope Monad isn't as bad as bash. Granted, it's taken Microsoft
over 20 years to come up with a command line any better than DOS, so
there's no reason to expect anything much from them, but Holy crap, let
it not be as bad as bash. It's been 30 -- count 'em -- 30 years that Unix
has given us this fragmented, forked, standards uncompliant,
horrifically architected, spaghetti coded, unformalized, unspecified,
poorly documented, parade of the goofiest, most totally inept and inane
command shell/scripting languages imaginable.
Sorry, the frustration of living with bash, sh, csh, ksh, tcsh, etc. for
30 years just caused me to convulse and vomit forth the aforementioned
flames ...
Please, Microsoft, not another sh variant. I beg you.
I just wonder if M$ will keep all their arcane dos commands, you know how
annoying it is to move form a *nix to windows platform and have all the
goofy commands not work. You know how many times I have typed ls -l, in
dos just to remember its dir instead.
Man maybe you need some medical counseling, if you hate shells that
much, how did you put up with Windows for this long, especially Windows
98?
I dread to ask the question, of what specifically do you hate about the
bash shell, I find it well documented as well as any GNU software, just
go to gnu.org read up on it. I know that some people just hate CLI, but
then again I don't have a problem with it, but then again I think using
emacs, and vim are pretty cool, I don't know what I would do without
xterm.
As the old joke goes what is Xwindows used for? It used to switch
between xterms! That kind of sums up what kind of a user I am, I love
pipes, find, and grep if M$ has a decent implementation of that then it
might be useful.
I just wonder if M$ will keep all their arcane dos commands, you know how
annoying it is to move form a *nix to windows platform and have all the
goofy commands not work. You know how many times I have typed ls -l, in
dos just to remember its dir instead.
Franc said:Yeah, DIRectory makes a lot less sense that ls -l.
A said:Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few programming languages
in use that's actually worse than Bash. I'm sure MS will either maintain
backwards compatibility or keep the DOS interpreter around. MS gets
routinely assaulted for its supposed neglect of backwards compatibility,
but all I can say is it's pretty hard to do worse than the fragmentation
under Unix, with a half dozen or more shells, all incompatible, and
all equally bad.
The problem with Unix users is that they're almost all advocates, so
they're unable to view the technology critically. That's partly why
Unix systems have fallen so far behind in technology over the past 15
years or so, while competing systems continued to progress. I seem
to be one of the few Unix users who is willing to speak honestly about
the limitations and the great need for improvement.
A Jones said:Who cares? The DOS batch language is one of the few
programming languages in use that's actually worse than Bash.
The problem with Unix users is that they're almost all advocates,
so they're unable to view the technology critically. That's
partly why Unix systems have fallen so far behind in technology
over the past 15 years or so, while competing systems continued
to progress. I seem to be one of the few Unix users who is
willing to speak honestly about the limitations and the great
need for improvement.
There's a tiny minority of people who fall in love with
typical Unix technologies X Window, Emacs, and Bash, and
are unable or unwilling to see how much need they have for
need to do is to compare it, with its brief, imprecise, and
for languages like Java, C#, OCaml, Haskell, Scheme, ...,
Also, you might want to visit the scsh web site. Scsh is
Can't we all just get along?
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80972 Jul 25 2004 /usr/bin/dir
Franc Zabkar said:To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language.
that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that
used RPN, such as those made by HP, preferring calculators
that supported standard algebraic notation.)
Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made
computing accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the
old elitist us-and-them relationship should die, IMHO.
FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful
replacement for command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
Robert said:Good. I always liked 4DOS. Tell me, is the source also
available? I'd like to replace `bash`, although I'm sure
it will need mods to do the filename expansion that the unix
shells do, but MS-DOS passes to pgms.
To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
doskey ls=dir
Actually I intend to migrate to Linux when Win98se no longer cuts it.
I'm also a big user of the command line and I welcome any move to make
it more powerful and user friendly. In the past I've used several
minicomputer OSes, all with intuitive English CLIs. I've also used
Coherent, but it involved a *lot* of learning, more than I was
prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language. I believe
that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that used RPN,
such as those made by HP, preferring calculators that supported
standard algebraic notation.)
Anyway, whether or not you like Bill, at least he has made computing
accessible. Any platform that perpetuates the old elitist us-and-them
relationship should die, IMHO.
FYI, 4DOS has recently become freeware, so a powerful replacement for
command.com and cmd.exe is already available.
Entirely true. His bloatware has driven hardware ever
bigger and faster.
You don't seem to make any distinction between a
programming language and a scripting language.
A Jones said:A scripting language is a kind of programming language.
Bash is reminiscent of BASIC. I think of it sort of as BASIC's
crazy uncle. It's got a weird and limited set of data structures,
The sad thing about Unix is that the technical incompetence
of its developers not only makes for lousy technology, but
A Jones said:He did not focus first on making anything accessible.
Where do you think hardware would be now if it weren't
for Microsoft? Where should it be? Should we still be
running 386's with 1 MB or RAM?
One of the reasons OS/2 faltered is that IBM was releasing versions
that needed 16MB of RAM at a time when 2 or 4 MB was the norm.
Windows 3.1 was pretty happy with 2 or 4 MB or RAM,
and Windows 95 could get by with 8MB.
As far as the current situation goes, I think it's pretty
clear that current Linux distributions are by far the
most inefficient and resource hungry systems ever created.
The system I'm on now (Linux Fedora Core 2) just doesn't run
well with less than 512 MB of RAM, and it needs at least 768
if I want to avoid excessive swapping when I have a lot of
Firefox tabs and other stuff going at once. That's a far
cry from the 8 or 16 MB Win 95 used to need, and it's 3 or
4 times what my Win2000 and Win XP systems need.
News to me. I thought the main reason OS/2 faltered was
Billy got in a huff and left with the UI with him. He
split the project, and took the market.
Maybe 4 without many apps open. Not 2.
Very badly. It was designed for 16, and ran much better in 32+.
I don't know what your problem is. I run Slackware fine on
an old 486sx laptop with 8 MB (no GUI). My main machine
has an excessive 512 MB, I run it swapless and I still get:
$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 515376 480772 34604 0 28904 199236
-/+ buffers/cache: 252632 262744
Swap: 0 0 0
with Mozilla, Citrix & bash running under KDE. It ran fine
swapless with 256 MB, and I'd expect it to run OK at 128 or
maybe 64 MB with swap.
Franc Zabkar said:To some extent you can define your own macros using DOSKEY:
Or the `bash` builtin `alias`. Even my retro Slackware comes
configured with `dir` as an alias to `ls`
- , and `ls` itself
to `/usr/bin/ls $LS_OPTIONS` so you can fix whatever options
you want in the env.
prepared to put in at the time. Unix (and its variants) has always
struck me as a cliquey, non-intuitive, boffin's language.
It is until you know why things evolved the way they did.
Hint: it was designed for paper teletypes at 110 baud.that computing should be an extension of one's normal thought
processes. (That's why I've always avoided calculators that
used RPN, such as those made by HP, preferring calculators
that supported standard algebraic notation.)
Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
together, often because of units.
Entirely true. His bloatware has driven hardware ever
bigger and faster.
Good. I always liked 4DOS. Tell me, is the source also
available?
I'd like to replace `bash`, although I'm sure
it will need mods to do the filename expansion that the unix
shells do, but MS-DOS passes to pgms.
-- Robert
Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
together, often because of units.
Entirely true. His bloatware has driven hardware ever
bigger and faster.
Good. I always liked 4DOS. Tell me, is the source also
available?
I'd like to replace `bash`, although I'm sure
it will need mods to do the filename expansion that the unix
shells do, but MS-DOS passes to pgms.
-- Robert
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.