Re: [TUHS] [tuhs] The Unix shell: a 50-year view

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3295 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:15 AM Tomasz Rola <rtomek@ceti.pl> wrote:


> So, looking from this perspective, maybe there was nothing
> particularly special in Unix as such. It was just a double pump of
> C-Unix, mutually pumping each other's success story.
>

I think there is more to it than that.  See <
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/zealot.html>.

I am not sure. I tried to find some time and install old OS on
> simh/pdp11, yet there was always something more pressing to do. Some
> alternatives to Unix, judging by their wikipedia descriptions, did not
> convince me - like, one OS booted straight into debugger, if memory
> serves.


ITS, yes.  But the debugger was not just a debugger, it was also a general
command-line interpreter, a shell in modern terms.  So while it is possible
to debug an empty memory into doing whatever you want, it is also possible
to run "advent", aka Colossal Cave Adventure.

> And after
> reading about TECO, plenty of editors seem like better choice for me
> :-).
>

I switched from Teco to ex at some point, and never went either forward or
back.  (Occasionally I drop into vi mode for things like parenthesis
checking.)

By the way, did anyone else start out on Unix-alikes before using actual
Unix?  I read the BSTJ issue and became an instant convert, but only when
$EMPLOYER got a MicroVAX was I able to work like that.  Next came the MKS
Toolkit on DOS, and then Cygwin for many years.  I suppose it's only my
last two $EMPLOYERs standardizing on the Mac that has left me running,
like, actual Unix.

If I still stick to Unix, it is because I still need something
> dependable and allowing my various experiments or small time
> developments.
>

"Computers are the greatest set of electric trains in the world."


>  I still suggest they are following the money. They are the
> kind of folk who never would find Unix interesting enough based on
> merits only. Asking about their choices leads us nowwhere, because
> their choices are not based on technical criteria.
>

True.  But then, many of us geeks make our choices not on technical
criteria but on tribal loyalty.  Which is *technically* superior, vi or
emacs?  (Please don't answer that.)

> Of course I could not be using specialised note
> taking program. Instead, I went with Emacs and org-mode. In the
> process I had to learn a bit of Elisp and dot-emacs file. Some
> defaults in Emacs are not comfy for my eyes - fonts, colors, it had to
> be fine tuned to my liking.
>

Note that Emacs is probably the oldest import into the Unix ecosystem from
outside, and it bears the marks of its origin: monolithic (but
programmable), one tool does it all.


> I wonder if other Unix (ab)users share something with me? Like,
> specialised single-person needs, or putting together building blocks
> of command line tools, or preference for terminal based software
> (because it works more often than not)?
>

Without doubt.  I am not loyal to a kernel or a set of utilities, I simply
follow the Way of Unix: <http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/upc/> (sadly
incomplete)



John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
"Hacking is the true football."  --F.W. Campbell (1863) in response to a
successful attempt to ban shin-kicking from soccer.  Today, it's biting.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7158 bytes --]