Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> There shouldn't be any need for your Grandmother to change anything.
> If there's a better set of names for the basic commands ("search"
> rather than "grep", and so on), it's easy enough for someone to
> do all that work *once* and let everyone else, including your
> Grandmother, take advantage of it.
>
> The trend for user-friendly Unix-like systems seems to be to do
> everything through a GUI environment, where the command-line tools
> aren't visible at all unless you ask for them.  That's what I'd
> expect someone's stereotypical Grandmother to do.  A non-programmer
> user probably needs a way to avoid the command-line shell altogether,
> not just a more friendly command line.  (Personally, I think GUIs
> are great for running shells.)

OK, you're right, please let me withdraw my "Grandmother" comment.  ;-)

I still think "grep" is a stupid name.  But I don't want to change it.

Of course I know how to change it.  I can add an 'alias' or a script
that's called "search" or something.  But then we have two names for the
same thing -- that adds complexity.  And I still need to understand
shell scripts that call "grep".  Better to have one stupid name than two
names.  Or I could "mv /bin/grep /bin/search".  That would be even
stupider -- there's only one name, and my new scripts can use it, but my
old scripts, and everybody else's scripts, would be broken.

So I'm not seriously suggesting that "grep" should be renamed now.
Nonetheless, I claim it was a stupid decision to call it "grep"
in the first place.

> If there were enough of a market consisting of users who (a) are
> comfortable using a command line, but (b) aren't comfortable with
> names like "grep" and "man", surely someone would have catered to
> that market by now.  (Perhaps Midnight Commander comes close, but
> I don't use it myself.)

No idea what "Midnight Commander" is.

>> But I do alias 'ls' to show all the sort-of hidden files.
>> Hiding files that start with "." is just plain stupid.
>
> So do I.  (Actually, I alias "l" to "ls -AF".)
>
> But the idea is that there needs to be *some* mechanism for hiding
> files that users normally shouldn't concern themselves with.

Hmm.  I have a file called ".cshrc" (another stupid name, by the way),
which I certainly DO need to concern myself with.  I'm annoyed that "ls"
doesn't show it, which is why I have (similarly to you):

    alias ls ls -AFC
    alias l ls

Anyway, I think the whole idea of sort-of-hidden files is broken and
unnecessary.  Sure, if I accidentally delete .cshrc, I'll mess things
up.  But the same is true of many non-hidden files (such as the
system.ads in my GNAT distribution, or the /etc/passwd file, or...).
Other mechanisms (file protections, backups, for ex.) protect me from
that sort of thing.

- Bob