Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
Matthew Hannigan m...@zip.com.au writes: Shell is a generic term for user interface, as well as a specific term, for e.g. unix cmomand line shells or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Shell Speaking of shells has anyone used rc or es for any length of time on a non-plan9 machine? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rc_shell) I tried it for a while, but found that it didn't offer a compelling enough improvement over bash to pay back the effort to learn it. Likewise the couple of Perl based shells I tried. Regards, Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons Looking for work? Love Perl? In Melbourne, Australia? We are hiring. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
Shell is a generic term for user interface, as well as a specific term, for e.g. unix cmomand line shells or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Shell Speaking of shells has anyone used rc or es for any length of time on a non-plan9 machine? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rc_shell) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
Shell is a set of functions that includes a text-based user interface. It hides the function details and complexities of the inner core or Kernel of the Operating System (OS). The Kernel is comprised of the device drivers to access various types and brands of disk, printers, networks, and other hardware peripherals in the market. There are dozens of each kind and type of these peripherals out there. For each of these peripherals a unique device driver maybe needed for it to work. For example, the shell could read data from any disk, ide, sata, or scsi using a single function call. This is possible because the OS is layered. It's called Shell because it covers the Kernel of the OS. In many illustrations of the Unix OS,the OS is presented as a sphere, with three layers. The inner most layer is the Kernel, the next layer is the Shell which surrounds the Kernel, and the Applications which surround the Shell. This is to illustrate that Applications request services via the Shell. Of course one could write an Application to bypass the Shell but only a masochist or a fool would do that. There are always exceptions to this last statement, i.e., if an application requires better access efficiency or some cute features. Applications request OS services from the Kernel through the Shell. The OS returns the result to the Application via the Shell. One obvious reason why we love the shell is, so that we do not need to rewrite our Applications every time there is a new brand or type of device. Our OS developer or Device manufacturer writes the device driver and we simply add that to our Kernel. Installing is easier than developing. There are scores of peripherals manufactured every year and so imagine the amount of modifications that Application developers will have to do if OS was not designed with a Shell. KDE, GNOME, etc., are shells with Graphics User Interfaces. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
On Friday 28 August 2009 07:20:35 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: [snip] and another aspect of Unix, which seems to have repeated itself (or not?) with unix-like linux is the different flavours: Solaris, BSD, AIX, Ultrix (now apparently known as HPUX). [snip] These are legal issues not technical ones. There are two categories: licensed (from the unix license holders) unix, but who may not use unix(c) to describe their product eg AIX, HPUX (I worked for HP in the '80's and it was HPUX even then) and things that work just like (or even better) than unix but which do not derive from the source. eg minix, linux, bsd Long long ago unix was given away to educational institutions. I do not know how tainting with that affects current offerings. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
jam wrote: On Friday 28 August 2009 07:20:35 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: [snip] and another aspect of Unix, which seems to have repeated itself (or not?) with unix-like linux is the different flavours: Solaris, BSD, AIX, Ultrix (now apparently known as HPUX). [snip] These are legal issues not technical ones. There are two categories: licensed (from the unix license holders) unix, but who may not use unix(c) to describe their product eg AIX, HPUX (I worked for HP in the '80's and it was HPUX even then) and things that work just like (or even better) than unix but which do not derive from the source. eg minix, linux, bsd Ahh...I just asumed the DECCompaqHP meant UltrixHP ULTRIX What MS/Windows has contributed, to the evolution, is that Linux is hardware independent. That is what amazed me, when the laptop just booted off the Knoppix disk in 2004. Marghanita Long long ago unix was given away to educational institutions. I do not know how tainting with that affects current offerings. James -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
jam wrote: On Wednesday 26 August 2009 10:00:06 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: The point about shells has already been made, but some people have got a bit sidetracked. Shells are command-interpreters; they mediate between the user and the kernel. Applications in Unix, as has already been said, get to run because a shell is spawned by the fork() system process. This is as true for GUI applications as for command-line text ones. [snip] old fart mode not with standing, not stupid, so I do know that opining that GUI s are slow and cumbersome compared to the CLI will provoke ummm response. What did surprise me was that the list of things GUIs *are* good at was not emphasized at all. Kinda like going to the YR12 ball in a F1 car rather than a stretch limo. Hearking back to Marghanita's original query: shells are an important part of the system and Wine, Java etc are apps not shells. Thanks for lively criticism :-) James Both GUIs and shells are just human interfaces for people to talk to computers, instructions are then translated to machine language for the computer. Ken -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
Ken Wilson wrote: jam wrote: On Wednesday 26 August 2009 10:00:06 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: The point about shells has already been made, but some people have got a bit sidetracked. Shells are command-interpreters; they mediate between the user and the kernel. Applications in Unix, as has already been said, get to run because a shell is spawned by the fork() system process. This is as true for GUI applications as for command-line text ones. [snip] old fart mode not with standing, not stupid, so I do know that opining that GUI s are slow and cumbersome compared to the CLI will provoke ummm response. What did surprise me was that the list of things GUIs *are* good at was not emphasized at all. Kinda like going to the YR12 ball in a F1 car rather than a stretch limo. Hearking back to Marghanita's original query: shells are an important part of the system and Wine, Java etc are apps not shells. Thanks for lively criticism :-) James Both GUIs and shells are just human interfaces for people to talk to computers, instructions are then translated to machine language for the computer. Ken There is a nice write up here: http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Unix_command_shell and another aspect of Unix, which seems to have repeated itself (or not?) with unix-like linux is the different flavours: Solaris, BSD, AIX, Ultrix (now apparently known as HPUX). As of 2007, the owner of the trademark is The Open Group, an industry standards consortium. Only systems fully compliant with and certified according to the Single UNIX Specification are qualified to use the trademark; others are called Unix system-like or Unix-like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix Marghanita -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: 40 Years of Unix
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 10:00:06 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: The point about shells has already been made, but some people have got a bit sidetracked. Shells are command-interpreters; they mediate between the user and the kernel. Applications in Unix, as has already been said, get to run because a shell is spawned by the fork() system process. This is as true for GUI applications as for command-line text ones. [snip] old fart mode not with standing, not stupid, so I do know that opining that GUI s are slow and cumbersome compared to the CLI will provoke ummm response. What did surprise me was that the list of things GUIs *are* good at was not emphasized at all. Kinda like going to the YR12 ball in a F1 car rather than a stretch limo. Hearking back to Marghanita's original query: shells are an important part of the system and Wine, Java etc are apps not shells. Thanks for lively criticism :-) James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
