Shell commands like to OS/2 shell (or MS PowerShell)
bernd.stramm at gmail.com
Tue Apr 20 16:34:16 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 16:56 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> tis 2010-04-20 klockan 01:51 +0300 skrev Slava Zanko:
> > For example, all present utilites have sence just for guru's (ls, rm,
> > fsck etc), but for novies it's hard to use. Is good idea to symlink'ing
> > (shell aliasing) these and much more utilz to another names?
> The present utilities makes sense for gurus because they understand the
> history behind them and why the utilities have become what they are. But
> to create something that's easy for new users and that might be
> attractive to those of us that already know our way around the shell it
> wouldn't be enough to rename the commands. You'd need to dig deeper.
> For example you still have lots of obscure switches and options to
> consider. (Why is media.convert.video nothing at all like
> media.convert.audio.ogg?) And you have fun things like string quoting,
> forking processes, vectors (say, the difference between "$*" and "$@"),
> $IFS, error handling (did you know about "set -e"?) and so on...
In addition to all that, I wouldn't say that these composite names are
all that memorable. You would get people add a layer of translation to
polish, chinese and to australian english. Then you would get shell
scripts relying on translation layers being present. Romanian and French
language purists would insist that filesystem.do.this.and.that should be
that.and.this.do.filesystem, nothing else will do.
More information about the devel