Re: Shells and Syntax Again (Was: X Accessibility)
Thomas Tempé (Johnix) wrote:
I would advise you to get used to the unix shell syntax. Being less
verbose, it is much more expressive (single-letter free-floating
modifiers <snip>
Well, it is easy for you to say <smiley>. Coming from a DOS background, I
have no trouble with single letter switches or even the Unix-style of nicely
concatenating all the switches after a single dash. I was mostly complaining
about very cryptic and ambiguous command names. Take w, for instance.
check twic before typing a "risky" command anyway).
People say you don't know what you've lost until you lose it. It didn't
bother me in the DOS days but nowadays I feel like this about the lack of
the Recycle Bin, Trash or whatever. I feel a bit dodgy when having to do
some potentially risky file operation under Unix or DOS for that matter. And
it is far too easy to type in
c:\temp\>
del ..
y
without really thinking. Yes, this has happened to me once.
as well as
del .
in c: when I thought I was in a:
Does Linux have some kind of an undelete command, and might it be called urm
for consistency?
I wonder if a shell could have unlimited undo capabilities like many
graphics or sound editors do. One way to achieve something like that at
least partially would be to flag things to be done and then have some
special commit command that could also be rolled back if something goes
wrong.
manipulate the filesystem in an oo
manner using an OO scripting that represents files as objects.
Sounds nice. Are there any file systems for Linux that actually include a
relational database on a fairly low level. I think BeOS had something like
this and Longhorn is going to have some database layer. Not sure what will
come of it.
Well gcj. It's in Debian.
THX.
Have fun,
Will do, <smiley>.
--
With kind regards Veli-Pekka Tätilä (vtatila@mail.student.oulu.fi)
Accessibility, game music, synthesizers and more:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~vtatila
Reply to: