Funny how time gaps develop when looking back. No question that Unix precedes DOS, and that DOS was heavily influenced by Unix and its derivatives. But Unix was developed in 1969-1970. CP/M was developed in 1974 and was certainly highly influenced by Unix. MS-DOS followed in 1980 and added its own small variations.Remember that Microsoft had its own version of UNIX, called XENIX. That is what they originally wanted high-end PC power users to move to. The plan was for MS-DOS to be the low-end consumer OS, XENIX to be the high-end OS, and for a new transitional OS called XEDOS to be released in 1982 for the IBM PC. But as MS-DOS gained in popularity, Microsoft gave up on the XEDOS idea and instead added many UNIX-like features into DOS 2.0, including subdirectories, command switches, pipes, redirection, etc.
With an undocumented CONFIG.SYS command (SWITCHAR) you could even redefine the default switch character from / to - (so that DIR /W would become DIR -W), which would also change the subdirectory character from \ to / like it is in UNIX. And another undocumented CONFIG.SYS command (AVAILDEV) would represent system devices as files in the /DEV directory, just like in UNIX. But these two features remained undocumented and were dropped from DOS 3.x because they broke compatibility with existing DOS software.
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.
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.not true. Dos is CP/M copycat
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.not true. Dos is CP/M copycat
I feel a lot of the CLI is better just comes down to it being easier to instruct on and it's also often more consistent. Run this command rather than:
what GUI are you using, what version, do you have a icon that looks like a bird, yea, click the little arrow, what just came up etc... WTF did you just click on??? Ummmm, was OK the ONLY button.... No I did not tell you to click on that.... WTF are you talking about, you click the button not me, next time 'Warning' appears don't click the Freakin OK button unless I tell you too...
alias ls='ls --color=auto' which adds color to the file listing WHICH I HATE! One of their color selections if effectively invisible if you have the slightest color deficiency.
For example, if somebody is familiar with GCC, knows it inside and out, and you give him Clang to work with, then all his knowledge of the GCC interface isn't worth shit. He has to pick up the manual and learn the interface all over again. This process has to be repeated for every single piece of new CLI software.
I feel a lot of the CLI is better just comes down to it being easier to instruct on and it's also often more consistent. Run this command rather than:
what GUI are you using, what version, do you have a icon that looks like a bird, yea, click the little arrow, what just came up etc... WTF did you just click on??? Ummmm, was OK the ONLY button.... No I did not tell you to click on that.... WTF are you talking about, you click the button not me, next time 'Warning' appears don't click the Freakin OK button unless I tell you too...
I don't think a command line is much better in this regard.
A single wrong character or space will cause a command to fail. And the incompetent user is just an likely to write the wrong command as to click the wrong button. Not to mention that the output of many CLI programs can be incomprehensible to a user who hasn't ever used it before ('ls' is a good example of this). Anyway, better to control the machine remotely of the user doesn't know what he's doing.
Your comment did remind me that that consistency is exactly what a command line interface lacks most. Every program has to be learned individually from documentation before even attempting to use it. Nothing you learn from one program's interface is useful in controlling another's when it comes the command line.
For example, if somebody is familiar with GCC, knows it inside and out, and you give him Clang to work with, then all his knowledge of the GCC interface isn't worth shit. He has to pick up the manual and learn the interface all over again. This process has to be repeated for every single piece of new CLI software.
GUIs on the other hand have lots of interface conventions which make it possible for the user to build on previous experience. Maybe he needs help the manual to learn MS Word, but once he's got it, he can pick up Libre Office and work without much additional effort required. This is consistency.
Sheesh. You guys probably also want everyone to use the same clothes, the same size displays, and the same fonts everywhere, so you feel comfortable, huh? Configurability bad, forced uniformity good, eh?
Sheesh. You guys probably also want everyone to use the same clothes, the same size displays, and the same fonts everywhere, so you feel comfortable, huh? Configurability bad, forced uniformity good, eh?
(Now if you take a look at Gnome 3, the team is probably the same crowd as the above guys... )
I do get it, though. Very few of us are taught to modify our tools to fit our needs, and are instead told to, well, almost revere them; keep them well, use them according to manufacturer guidelines, and so on. This is exactly the huge change in attitude that is needed to get really comfortable and efficient when using Linux.
If you want your product to have the widest possible user base, you mustn't expect much from your users.
Yes, and that is exactly why Linux developers and long-time users like me are not at all interested in widening the Linux user base at all.
If you want your product to have the widest possible user base, you mustn't expect much from your users.Yes, and that is exactly why Linux developers and long-time users like me are not at all interested in widening the Linux user base at all.
I find it idiotic to get so wound up about defaults. It's your tool, take ownership of it, and bend it to your will!
I find it idiotic to get so wound up about defaults. It's your tool, take ownership of it, and bend it to your will!Being able to customize is a poor excuse for bad defaults.
Sheesh. You guys probably also want everyone to use the same clothes, the same size displays, and the same fonts everywhere, so you feel comfortable, huh? Configurability bad, forced uniformity good, eh?
Sheesh. You guys probably also want everyone to use the same clothes, the same size displays, and the same fonts everywhere, so you feel comfortable, huh? Configurability bad, forced uniformity good, eh?Where do you get that from in rstofer saying he hates 'ls -color' and me agreeing with him that the default colour choices are ergonomically poor?
says more about your world view than it does about anybody else's
Sheesh. You guys probably also want everyone to use the same clothes, the same size displays, and the same fonts everywhere, so you feel comfortable, huh? Configurability bad, forced uniformity good, eh?Where do you get that from in rstofer saying he hates 'ls -color' and me agreeing with him that the default colour choices are ergonomically poor?From the Snarky Semi-Sarcastic Tone store.says more about your world view than it does about anybody else'sDon't hurt yourself when climbing back down from your high moral horse; it's a long way back to ground level.
There's an awful lot of them admiring that market share fraction, but not understanding why they can't make it rise further.
Tim