Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?

From: Herbert Kleebauer (klee_at_unibwm.de)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:06:28 +0100

Phil Carmody wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> writes:

> > > It can execute the .com file as easily as a command.com or cmd.exe batch file can.
> >
> > Is this true for any new Linux distribution.
>
> You really have a hard time detecting the subject of arguments, don't you?
> It's a statement about _bash_, not about _linux_.
>
> Bash is the usual shell in cygwin, on windows (though others are
> available, and they behave identically in this regard).

> The ability to recognise and execute .com files is strictly a DOS and
> MS Windows (and OS2, clones, and emulators) one. I've never said otherwise.

Now, who is the moving target? The discussion in this sub thread
was from the beginning on about a compare of the scripting in Linux
and DOS/Windows. Here the start of the sub thread:

  +---------------------------------------------------------------------
  | From: "T.M. Sommers" <tms@nj.net>
  | Subject: Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?
  | Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:38:13 GMT
  |
  | > and this is exactely where Linux completely fails,
  | > and why almost no real final users want to use it.
  |
  | Linux has plenty of users; so does BSD.
  |
  | There are more people in the world than grannies and tots. If
  | you are aiming your OS at grannies and tots, then obviously it
  | must be usable by them, but if you are aiming your OS at people
  | who want to get real work done, then you have different
  | requirements. One of the biggest advantages of Unix-like shells
  | is that they allow the user to do things that the creator of the
  | shell never imagined.
  +---------------------------------------------------------------------

We never talked about using bash in DOS/Windows. The argument
for the unix side always was, that you don't need to embed
binaries in a shell because many standard tools are available
on any unix system (which has nothing to do with the used shell).

  +---------------------------------------------------------------------
  | From: Percival <dragontamer5788@yahoo.com>
  | Subject: Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?
  | Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:30:15 -0500
  |
  | >>One of the biggest advantages of Unix-like shells
  | >>is that they allow the user to do things that the creator of the
  | >>shell never imagined.
  |
  | > But they can't be more flexible than DOS/Windows batch scripts,
  | > where you can directly insert processor instructions into the
  | > script. Anything a computer can do, a DOS/Win batch script also
  | > can do.
  |
  | Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Glad you agree that shells == more
  | flexibility. IMO, unix shells are more powerful because of the standard
  | tools offered. Such as grep, find, with pipes so you can find every
  | file, and print them to the printer if you wanted. Then again, i don't
  | remember a && thing in Windows command line (if the last thing failed,
  | then dont continue) but perhaps it is just my lack of experiance with
  | Windows command line.
  +---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your new statement, bash is only as flexible as cmd.exe when used in
DOS/Windows but not when used in Unix, is identical to my statement
which I used from the beginning: Unix scripts can't be more flexible
than DOS/Windows scripts.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Find components of "setup"?
    ... There are similar concepts in Linux. ... 'help' at the command prompt, and you'll get a list of built-ins. ... (shell), sometimes not. ... This applies to, say, Perl scripts as well. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Find components of "setup"?
    ... There are similar concepts in Linux. ... 'help' at the command prompt, and you'll get a list of built-ins. ... (shell), sometimes not. ... This applies to, say, Perl scripts as well. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: root /etc/csh
    ... Especially in Linux, it's common to prefix scripts with #!/bin/bash ... The sh shell is the UNIX standard scripting shell, ... one is bash. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Future for VC++ Programmers
    ... I don't want a system where the way applications do useful things is to spawn shell ... And these scripts only work if the correct version of the shell is installed on ... for whatever standard version we're talking about this week. ... I shouldn't have written the word "linux" on a microsoft newsgroup... ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Why newbies dont RTFM...
    ... Even though I've used Linux before, I've never had to do any ... > BASH BUILTIN COMMANDS ... > last command exited within ... > unless the shell is not exeâ ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
Loading