DOS is a watered-down version of UNIX. Linux is a proper UNIX implementation. Linux may have come after DOS, but UNIX was first. DOS is the "wheel reinventer" here.
So things like ls, cp, mv and xargs (good luck doing that on DOS) were first.
Learning the cli in UNIX (Linux) is pure power. I recommend it.
I've been a 'DOS/Windows' man all my life! However, I've decided to be a bit more 'edurmecated'
and so I'm playing around with 'Linux' as a Virtual-Machine first, within a Windows PC.
Now obviously, GUI's make the learning relatively typical, (but different), than Windows or a Mac.
However, most online 'tuition's' seem to start with the CLI (Command Line Interpreter), as so much
seems to be done with that, for most users, although it seems daunting at first. And that's OK.
But why did they seemingly have to "re-invent the wheel" ? Basically, it's like going back to 'DOS',
which I'm very familiar with, although I can understand that for a lot of young people today is foreign.
OK, so why use a new command like 'ls' instead of 'dir' which is world known for a Directory listing?
Or, using 'cp' instead of the universally understood 'copy' as in DOS ? And numerous more changes.
I don't understand why they didn't standardize the names, even though it is a different O.S.
OK, so why use a new command like 'ls' instead of 'dir' which is world known for a Directory listing?
Or, using 'cp' instead of the universally understood 'copy' as in DOS ? And numerous more changes.
I also suspect there is an amount of snobbery wit the developers about not having graphical settings. The settings in the GUI have increased but it would seem that to use linux to the full you need to commit a load of stuff to memory which is perhaps why windows drew ahead as it always strived to be idiot proof.
Point of trivia, "dir" works in cygwin. This is an open source Linux-compatible environment (I suppose the aforementioned WSL serves much the same purpose in W10).
Tim
True, but it's just an alternate name copy of "ls". None of the windows / options work with it, but all of the ls - or -- options do.
I've been a 'DOS/Windows' man all my life! ....
But why did they seemingly have to "re-invent the wheel" ? Basically, it's like going back to 'DOS',
which I'm very familiar with, although I can understand that for a lot of young people today is foreign.
OK, so why use a new command like 'ls' instead of 'dir' which is world known for a Directory listing?
Or, using 'cp' instead of the universally understood 'copy' as in DOS ? And numerous more changes.
I've been a 'DOS/Windows' man all my life! ....
But why did they seemingly have to "re-invent the wheel" ? Basically, it's like going back to 'DOS',
which I'm very familiar with, although I can understand that for a lot of young people today is foreign.
OK, so why use a new command like 'ls' instead of 'dir' which is world known for a Directory listing?
Or, using 'cp' instead of the universally understood 'copy' as in DOS ? And numerous more changes.You have to set your knowledge of history right, Unix was invented and released at early 70s, while DOS was introduced in 1981, almost 2 decades later.
ls, mv, cp, cd, du are nice and short for commands you will be typing a lot.
You can get all up your high horse on how correct they are in DOS or not, they are not as short.