I am not suggesting getting rid of Bash, only making a new shell... etc. I am saying that the Linux community really should rethink the most powerful computer tool they have, the CLI. I think that saying, "well, if we change something then people won't understand it, so it isn't good" is a pretty lame excuse for not making the shell better. pretty much everything in linux has had to be rethought in the past few years (with the introduction of real dekstop environs like KDE and Gnome). Why should we settle for an interface that is neither intuitive, nor really easy to use, nor "standard" (check out the various arguments for recursive, for instance, or how bash uses uppercase). The idea that geeks would not be able to use a new tool becuase it is userfriendly but not "normal" is preposterous. There are newbies coming up all the time, and what about the billions of people that havne't used a computer yet, but will in the future if Free Software really is Free? Isn't the point of Free Software to allow people to use computers? Will there be a learning curve? Of course, but every advance has a learning curve. And again, I am not suggesting we get rid of Bash, only that we remake the CLI interface. Keep bash for backword compatibility, but jeez, let's get something easier to use than the GNU tools for using our computers! (Without resorting to a GUI, of course). Matthew Butterick wrote: > Ease of use is relative to the user's expectations of how the tool > works. A bash that didn't use standard bash commands wouldn't really be > bash anymore, and if you were fluent with bash commands, you'd find it > both harder to use and less elegant. > > MB > > delmar watkins wrote: > > > > I am not suggesting getting rid of Bash, only making a new shell that can be > > heralded as "easy to use" and "elegant." > > > > Umm... think of it like busybox; there are a lot of commands crammed in to > > one executable. we don't need to get rid of the old structure, we just need > > a new interface to our computers. Bash should remain Bash, > > > > Sander Vesik wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, delmar watkins wrote: > > > > > > > See how easy it would be to have a new, fresh, GOOD syntax for a CLI but > > > > keep the power user in the loop??? > > > > > > > > > > You can't get the power user in the loop - you just suggested breaking all > > > his/her scripts horribly. In fact you might easily find it hard to > > > actually find people who would write such shells... > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-gui-list mailing list > gnome-gui-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-gui-list
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature