NGS: Next Generation Unix Shell • Hacker News Board

Re: NGS: Next Generation Unix Shell

#201

Post by JdeBP » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 10:47 AM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #126

Arnavion wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Windows gets this right: By default, files are not deleted, but moved to trash. The del or Remove-Item commands also permanently delete the file, just like rm. The "Windows" behavior you're talking about is the behavior of the graphical shell Explorer, which is also present in Gnome and KDE. There's nothing specific to Windows here.

That said, i'd like a "del to recycle bin" in Windows too.

Then get yourself off to https://jpsoft.com/ , set the Delete To Recycle Bin option on in the configuration tool (https://jpsoft.com./help/inistartupdlg.htm), and enjoy exactly that. (-:

Re: NGS: Next Generation Unix Shell

#202

Post by JdeBP » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

regularfry wrote: post #61

gravypod wrote: post #50

What is this intended on fixing? I don't think the solution to anything is to make the shell more user-friendly. The only solution is to make the graphical user-interface more user friendly and feature full. The only time it should be acceptable to be forced to use a shell, in my opinion, is if you are swapping out your desktop environment. Until that happens, Windows and OS X will rule the desktop and PC market. I'm…

> The only solution is to make the graphical user-interface more user friendly and feature full. There's only one feature that matters here, really: composability. Provide an environment in which I can compose simple tools into complicated workflows I can fling data through, and we might have a winner. > The only time it should be acceptable to be forced to use a shell, in my opinion, is if you are swapping out your…

... although that is a canonical Useless Use of grep. (-:

* http://porkmail.org/era/unix/award.html#grep

Re: NGS: Next Generation Unix Shell

#203

Post by JdeBP » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #28

andrey_utkin wrote: post #14

So, this project starts about shell, then I see it also aims to implement full-blown terminal emulator and a lot of new very ambitious features, and then it invites terminal-based apps to use new capabilities of it, so it would be best usable only if the whole ecosystem of compatible apps appear. Unfortulately, I'm pessimistic. Also, would like to comment on project's README. Not meaning to be harsh. > The shells nev…

"So, this project starts about shell, then I see it also aims to implement full-blown terminal emulator and a lot of new very ambitious features, and then it invites terminal-based apps to use new capabilities of it, so it would be best usable only if the whole ecosystem of compatible apps appear." This is actually my only objection and the only feedback I'd make to the author. Contra some of the other posters here,…

> [...] shell is a mess and [...] the basic root cause of the mess is that you can not straddle interactive use and programmatic use with one language.

Note that some of the world has already taken this notion on board long since. About a decade ago, Debian Linux and Ubuntu Linux swapped out /bin/sh so that it was no longer the Bourne Again shell. Nowadays, as a result of this, one regularly finds Linux systems where programmatic shell scripts are interpreted by something like the Debian Almquist or Debian Policy-Ordinary (posh) shells and interactive login session shell work is the domain of the Bourne Again, Korn, Z, or other shells.

And of course, having a different "better" shell for interactive use was the reported rationale for the C shell.

Re: NGS: Next Generation Unix Shell

#204

Post by mixmastamyk » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #174

gervase wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, if you disagree with their opinion: hidebound, closeminded, timorous, etc. I think the parent was going for something indicating disagreement, so it seems unlikely that your "positive" adjectives are what they were looking for.

I've been on both sides of the equation, having disagreed with sysadmins about their enforcing of a particular login shell, and having been a sysadmin myself. Not installing fish shell on production systems ("across the farm") is something I'd chalk up to wisdom, not a lack of open-mindedness. I was subtly suggesting that in my choice of positive adjectives.

Really, you shouldn't be logging in interactively into production machines, so no need to install extra tools by default.