"Day Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i dunno that I can communicate with everyone bob, but > maybe you notice that none of the dos lovers seem to > pick up on what you have to say.
Maybe that's because I'm making misleading statements about DOS, hmm? MOST folks on this list seem to have been "DOS lovers" at one point, myself included. A good number of us have migrated to Linux. And most have the good sense not to illustrate gaps in their knowledge of EITHER system by posting whatever comes first to their minds. > Maybe there is work being done on the Linux CLI, but > I dont see any new anouncements of any of it, whereas > all of the new programs I see mentioned for Linux are > GUI apps. I mention Opera specifically because it is > one, the only one, which I have seen mentioned because > it has reduced code bloat. Then you're certainly not looking very hard (see below). > Nor do I see where you have responded to the particular > examples I gave with respect to file management. Is "file management" the task then? What is the TASK? I know you like DC and DW, but what do you DO with them that's so much more cumbersome and awkward in Linux? You're the one that has started spouting ludicrous timings to load apps and such. So you don't like mc. Excuse me, but SO WHAT? Lots of people LOVE it. And lots love other tools, including good ol basic file manipulation using cp, rm and mv (especially with powerful regular expression matching offered by most shells). So again, WHAT ARE YOU DOING that is so cumbersome in Linux? How does the lack of 100% DC or DW compatability mean that Linux is somehow not up to the TASK at hand. You're basically saying "Linux sucks because it doesn't have dc/dw!" How clueful is that? > This is not something GUI users are even aware that there > are any alternatives that might be faster or have more > functionality. Now, if you could cite something that > has the functionality I mention, which MC seems to lack, > that DC.COM and DW.COM have, I frankly would be most > grateful. What, implement a specific interface implementation? Specific keystrokes? What are you after specifically? Hell, there's no AppleWorks for DOS. Does that mean DOS is lacking somehow? Tagging files and such? I don't use MC because, quite frankly, I find THAT level of GUI-ish overhead annoying for something so blindingly simple. But that's my taste, not a shortcoming of any particular OS. > I would love to have the convenience in Linux > that I see in DOS. Great! To do WHAT exactly though? Are you bemoaning the lack of DC/DW specifically, or making a point of some sort? > Simply stating that Linux has vast > numbers of superior tools may be true, but if the dos > users dont know where they are, that dont matter. YOU'RE the one stating that LINUX is lacking in the tools and capabilities, and that development of these tools is stagnant. There are tons of tools for BOTH environments. Lack of one tool on the other platform isn't a shortcoming. It MAY be a barrier to using that system, but that's a personal decision. And it's actually a good opportunity to do a port! > That CLI work in Linux continues in networking is not > relevant to the issue at hand, which was what was good > for the single user at his own machine. Networking, bbs, file manipulation, text, ANSI and graphic image processing, multimedia, USB access, PIMs, genealogy, instant messaging, braille display drivers, audio CD creation tools and napster clients are all available for the console. Some use text-mode GUIs, some don't. Sheesh, take a look at http://packages.debian.org/unstable/ for a SUBSET of what's available. There are TWO programs that allow you to watch TV in a text-based console, i.e. in a virtual console. Talk about hotkeying between screens! Each of those listed are packages that typically include SEVERAL individual programs. Sorry, dude, but only a portion of the list is "networking". All of it's free, legally used and distributed with no costs. And if you're going to bring up the fact that lots of GUI-based and network work IS going on (like that's a bad thing), then to be fair you still need to compare the amount of ACTIVE non-GUI, non-network development going on in BOTH environments. I'd still bet that Linux/Open Source development is doing rather well in the comparison. Development tools (languages, compilers), text editors and electronics/home control are a few that come to mind. Day, you're taking shots at Linux that are more-and-more off base. There is PLENTY of non-GUI-centric development going on, even if you FURTHER restrict it to non-network. Hell, in doing a quick skim, I spotted a perl program that would provide much of the foundation of the ANSI-encoded reader program you so often go on about. It's currently used to colorize log entries -- easy to rewrite it to recognize your "voices" in scripts. You could write that sucker yourself using the freely available tools in no time! Oh, and perl is (or rather programs can be) non-networked, non-GUI! I also found a program that will automatically log you in, getting you past that dreaded and all-time-consuming login prompt you dislike so much. And while you bemoan the lack of display appearance, there's a fun little package that will make your Linux console look like a Commodore Amiga! > I dont have > firewall problems. I am not running a server. Linux is > great for that. I have said so several times. Yeah, and then you go on to say that basic file management is somehow so much more cumbersome in Linux, and assert that little non-GUI development is taking place (along with a host of other misleading statements). The problem is you imply that's ALL it's suited for, when Linux is great for firewalls, network servers, GUI desktops, network management, games, educational delivery systems and just about anything else you can name, and a lot you apparently haven't even imagined. > When the subject came up here of file managers, DW.COM > was suggested, and I was quite happy to try it. Were > there anything in Linux that you knew of that was as > functional, I'm sure you would have suggested that the > Linux users try it on their own CLI terminals. I didnt > see you, nor anyone else who uses Linux offer any clue. > Why not? the reasonable assumption is that MC is the > only thing anyone knows about. BULLSHIT. I suggested a couple, including mc, and others had suggestions as well. In fact, IIRC you were looking for a Norton Commander clone. You didn't LIKE mc (FYI: Updated in April 2001) because the keystrokes didn't match the DOS version exactly (though the function keys work fine on mine), but that doesn't mean it isn't a viable tool. I think the fact that the Linux version of mc can be used to move files directly to CD-RW -- without leaving the interface -- is pretty cool. In terms of alternatives, did you ever try: * ytree - http://www.han.de/~werner/ytree.html (2001 update) * fdclone - http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/fdclone.html (2001 update -- apparently the DOS maintainer is dropping off. Anyone care to pick up ongoing support for DOS?) * vfu - http://www.biscom.net/~cade/vfu/ (2001 update) * f - http://filemanager.free.fr/flinux.gif (2001 update) * CLEX - http://freshmeat.net/projects/clex/ Maybe you'll like one, maybe not. That's a long leap of logic away from a "reasonable assumption that MC is the only thing anyone knows about." It's not MY responsibility to point out tools I don't use, but I do get annoyed when you continue to make statements about Linux that are not true, and might discourage someone from trying it. When you don't find what you want, you start making up things to say and are often WRONG. > That MC is lacking is not a problem caused by Linux, but > the fact that it has not been upgraded or replaced with > another more tool with more functionality is evidence > that work on this CLI is not being done for the single > user/single PC environment. Day, your assertion that "CLI work is not being done for the single user/single PC environment" is incorrect. If you want a good, hard taste of what's REALLY going on, go to www.freshmeat.net and search on console. You'll find two subcategories that apply: console (text based) with 5,526 projects, and console (curses based) with 303 projects. With MINIMAL effort, I found SEVERAL file management tools for Linux BESIDES the popular mc. Of the Linux file managers I found that work in pure text mode that are pre-packaged for Debian, all have been updated in the last year (most in the last 6 months). Yeah, they're not DC or whatever, but that doesn't mean tools aren't there, or that development has stopped. File managers, religions, operating systems and editors are all topics folks have strong feelings about. That you choose to ignore the wealth of free, open source development going on that IS non-GUI is your problem. When you start to spread disinformation in a public forum, it (you) needs to be corrected. > Which is my whole point. It might be Bob, that crafting > the code for a more functional file mangager is a whole > lot easier in such a limited operating system as dos, > which does not havta deal with what other users are doing > at other terminals. Sounds a bit like "smaller brains are more efficient" doesn't it? No application under Linux "has" to deal with what other users are doing at other terminals. In fact, they can generally operate blissfully unaware of what else is going on within the systems. While it is not IMPOSSIBLE for programs to take down a Linux system, it certainly isn't as SIMPLE. Anyone care to constrast that to other operating systems? > HAve you run DW to compare it with MC? No Day, because I personally find those sorts of tools rather silly for doing basic file management tasks. I'm not the one looking for the tool. But I have suggested a few pointers in this message, and last time we went around this bend. Again, I don't care what you do and don't do in the privacy of your own home. But when you extend your lack of willingness to look for tools to mean that Linux development in non-GUI, single system, single user environments is moribund, you're off target. And when you start to make wrong and misleading statements to that effect in a public forum, I do care. This is not the Day Brown American New Frontier Hero operated broadcast wireless network. - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
