Re: Properties

["Thomas Løcke" <tl@ada-dk.org>]

On 2010-12-03 04:34, Shark8 wrote:
> Perhaps this is true in some degree; there are, however, some rather
> serious design flaws and deficiencies. One deficiency is/was the
> absence of a 'rename' command for files&  directories; renaming is a
> VERY common procedure for anyone managing their files; instead of
> 'rename' one is to use 'move' to achieve similar effect... there is
> one HUGE problem with using move [because * expansion is required in
> all *nix shells] you cannot rename groups of files.
>
> ex:
> DOS ->  Ren *.p *.pas    -- Renaming all .p files to .pas
> *nix ->  mv *.p *.pas    -- becomes expanded...
>       ->  mv 1.p 2.p 3.p test.pas    -- test.pas from the dir


Or you can use rename:

$ rename .bak .txt *.bak

That renames all your .bak files to .txt.

The rename command has been part of the standard Linux tools for many
years. It's also readily available for FreeBSD and I suspect other
*BSD's as well. You're not forced to use mv to rename files.



> Shell-scripting is loads of fun* too. {*And by 'fun' I mean
> irritating, irregular, and surprisingly non-portable between different
> 'flavors'.} The following two-line script shows the POWER of *nix
> shell-scripts:
> #/bin/sh
> $0&



A /bin/sh script is perfectly portable, if you intend to use it with the
Bourne Shell.

It's of course less portable if you try to use it with the C shell.



> The shell-scripting is one reason; why in the name of Chaos would
> someone want to use them [CSH or KSH or BASH]? In terms of power/
> flexibility a LISP-based shell would be TONS more useful/managable...
> though, admitidly it would require that one thinks in recursion.



If you don't like BASH, csh, zsh or Korn, then why not try
something like BUSH:

http://www.pegasoft.ca/bush.html

It has a very Ada-like approach to shell scripting.



> The lack of types on files is another; old Macs had file-types down,
> but *nix has nothing like that (nor does it have even the capability
> for it, kernel-wise). {Windows has a [barely] workable file-extension/
> association scheme -- analogous to an Ada map of (Key =>
> File_Extention, Element =>  Application_Info).}


The "file" command is your friend.

It just works, and it doesn't depend on some shaky dot extension scheme.

Simple file->program association is handled well in both KDE and Gnome.
I suspect other desktop environments have similar systems in place. I
don't think this is a job for the kernel.


> Lack of file versioning.* {Unix, Mac, and Win =>  Lose. VMS =>  Win.}
> *File-versioning could save the arses of 90% of the lost/corrupted
> file problems that I've encountered with MS Word users. i.e. the "my
> kid selected the first twelve pages of my document and replaced it
> with 'gsosdpofij' and I saved over it!" instantly becomes recoverable.


Hardly the fault of *nix, but of the file system you're using.

Or you could just use a VCS to track the directories and files that
needs versioning.


> One single hyphenated-word: man-pages.
> The old DOS hypertext help was superior to man=pages, windows .HLP
> file help was/is superior to man-pages, the OpenVMS help-system is
> FAR, FAR more usable than man-pages.


man rename
man file

What's wrong with that? It could not be any easier.

Do you want to search for a specific word?

man -K word

or a phrase?

man -K "my phrase"

Or using apropos:

man -k "determine file type"

and you get:

file []              (1)  - determine file type

It's easy, flexible and it works.


> Error codes? In *nix programs may or may not use them... (some
> programs return 0/success when errors were encountered) which makes
> them less than useless.


Hardly the fault of *nix, just as the abundance of horrible software
for Windows cannot be blamed on Windows itself.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke