BartC <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > On 07/12/2016 15:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <b...@freeuk.com> writes: >> <snip> >>> [...] But remember: >>> >>> cp *.c >>> >>> There might be some irate users out there if it can't detect a simple >>> user error like that. >> >> There might be. They are ill-served by current Unix shells. But, >> oddly, the flow has gone the other way. People have wanted Unix shells >> and utilities ported to Windows, not cmd.exe and friends ported to >> Linux. You clearly see a gap in the provision here. Wouldn't it be >> better for the world if you wrote cmd.exe for Linux rather than >> complaining about what other shells do? > > It's not my job to write OSes.
A shell is not an OS. The kind you want is not a big program and if you are not alone (as I think you almost certainly are) in wanting it, you will get help to make it happen. Writing a simple shell used to be an introductory exercise in system programming classes. But maybe it's not really much of a problem for you are your main concern is to have jolly good whinge about it? <snip> > But you might have seen my objections; even putting aside bias in > favour of one OS or another, I think many of them are valid. That fact > Linux is getting more popular does not mean it is always better.) It's not an OS issue -- Windows has bash and Linux does not have a compatible cmd.exe only because no one seems to have considered it enough of a problem to be worth solving. But, yes, I've seen all these objections before. The problem is not their validity by the absence of a solution with which they can be compared. MS's cmd.exe is not the solution (for me). I've never had a problem from accidentally typing cp *.c but when I had to use Windows I had a problem almost every day getting anything done. <snip> -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
