Linked by David Adams on Tue 9th Dec 2008 16:46 UTC, submitted by weildish
OSNews, Generic OSes Sometimes it seems that every new OS that comes out these days is ultimately and altogether quite similar. "It's all been done before," we sigh as new system after system is released with only eye-candy the apparent difference for most users. This new OS, named "g-speak" by its creators, will give one a run for his money. Using special gloves, a user of the system gestures his way about the OS on several wall-sized displays that interact with one another. The makers of g-speak call it "the first major step in [a] computer interface since 1984." Perhaps they are right. See the neat video here. You can even go so far as to dust off your Tom Cruise Minority Report action figure to better savor the future with.
Order by: Score:
New UI not OS
by theTSF on Tue 9th Dec 2008 17:18 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

It looks like an interesting prototype for a UI. But not so much for an OS per say. And while it looks cool for a Demo it may not be as intuitive for a general propose system yet.

Questions on dealing with managing documents and application I could see a real version of this going straight back to the File Document Metaphor just expanded in 3d. The UI is only a layer on top of OS not a new OS all together. I could see someone making a "WM" for Xwindows that does the same thing with good old Linux, or Unix which architecture is based on the 1970's

Reply Score: 11

RE: New UI not OS
by Morgan on Tue 9th Dec 2008 18:02 UTC in reply to "New UI not OS"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Exactly. When I read "New OS Designed With 21st Century In Mind" I expect something with a radically different approach to all aspects of computing, not just a nice new interface for the same old box.

Where is my new object oriented, document centric file system? Where is my document centric (as opposed to application centric) workflow? Where is my driverless hardware?

I personally think Apple is way ahead of the competition when it comes to treating an operating system as a tool that stays out of your way and is simple and beautiful besides. The other UNIX-like operating systems are coming along well, but they are stuck in the rut of keeping up with Windows and Office compatibility instead of breaking out in a new direction. We need someone out there in OSS land to show Microsoft how to make an OS that cares more about what the user wants to do and less about what's beneath the hood.

Here's an example using existing ideas: Your machine has two file systems in use, each on a separate physical SSD. The first is low-level OS storage, using a traditional journaling file system, and hidden completely from the user. The second is an object oriented document centric file system with generous use of metadata. Instead of opening an application to then open a file to edit, you click, tap or otherwise select the file you wish to use. When you do this, various actions possible with this file fan out around the icon allowing you to do whichever action you wish. You can even queue several actions in a sequence to create a workflow for that file.

So what constitutes a file? Anything tangible in the storage; bring up a calendar widget and select a day. That day becomes a file that can then be manipulated in any way you desire; it can be placed inside of other files as well, since every file can act as a container for other files. This is what I imagine when I hear the term "3D computing"; not the visual interface but the metaphoric placement of file objects.

Ok, so Apple has done a lot of what I wrote above. OS X is a great first step towards this radically different way of managing your digital life, but the possibilities are endless once we break out of the tired old ways of doing things we struggle with today.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: New UI not OS
by rajj on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: New UI not OS"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

What exactly is an object oriented file system supposed to be? Where you have abstracted containers with common methods to act upon them-- sort of like... files?

As far as their contents being application or document centric, that's really up to the applications and libraries used to access it. The file system proper doesn't --and shouldn't-- really come into play.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: New UI not OS
by Morgan on Tue 9th Dec 2008 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: New UI not OS"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

More information about OO file system concepts:

http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/coots97/full...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: New UI not OS
by rajj on Tue 9th Dec 2008 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: New UI not OS"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Well. That was the point of my comment; you made it sound like it was obvious what you were talking about as if there were some formal definition of an object oriented file system or that it was fundamentally different from what we already have. Now that you've shown me an actual implementation, it makes more sense.

Having a way to add user-space plugins to the VFS layer to override vnode syscalls per file based on type gives the file system a polymorphic feature which is indeed _one_ property of being OO but hardly one that OOP has a monopoly on. That said, this is still a neat idea, but I'm not convinced it would be as revolutionary as you suggest.

It also seems like every pre-existing programming concept gets lumped under the OOP umbrella. If it exhibits even one of those features, then the OO hand waving begins. I've even seen literature for products brag that the system is OO because they call UI elements --yes you guessed it-- OBJECTS!

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: New UI not OS
by Morgan on Tue 9th Dec 2008 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: New UI not OS"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree, the term "object oriented" has become an overused buzzword, but in this instance I think it is fairly accurate. Sorry for the confusion before, by the way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: New UI not OS
by Morgan on Tue 9th Dec 2008 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: New UI not OS"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

As far as their contents being application or document centric, that's really up to the applications and libraries used to access it. The file system proper doesn't --and shouldn't-- really come into play.


This statement shows you don't understand the difference at all. The current way of doing things is that the application decides what to do with the file. Conversely, I think the user should decide what to do with the file, and the OS should open the correct application based on the user's decision. This is facilitated through the file system; in my example above, when a user selects a file he is presented with the possible tasks for that file based on the file system's understanding of how the file can be manipulated.

An example: Do you want to print a rich text document? Instead of opening TextEdit or Word, then opening the file, then choosing Print from the menu, you should be able to just click once on the file, then select Print from the actions available. You've just saved yourself and your computer a great deal of time and processing cycles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: New UI not OS
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 10th Dec 2008 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: New UI not OS"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

An example: Do you want to print a rich text document? Instead of opening TextEdit or Word, then opening the file, then choosing Print from the menu, you should be able to just click once on the file, then select Print from the actions available. You've just saved yourself and your computer a great deal of time and processing cycles.


I'm not sure if you are saying that is a hallmark of some futuristic file system, or what not, but that's more than possible today. Take windows XP. Right click on a rtf document and then chose print from the actions. It doesn't involve the any file system metadata currently. Not sure how it would improve the situation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: New UI not OS
by DrillSgt on Wed 10th Dec 2008 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: New UI not OS"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"An example: Do you want to print a rich text document? Instead of opening TextEdit or Word, then opening the file, then choosing Print from the menu, you should be able to just click once on the file, then select Print from the actions available. You've just saved yourself and your computer a great deal of time and processing cycles."

You have been able to do this for years now. It is the right-click versus the left-click.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: New UI not OS
by DCMonkey on Wed 10th Dec 2008 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: New UI not OS"
DCMonkey Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, you've been able to do this on Windows since 1995. You can create your own too:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc144175(VS.85).aspx

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: New UI not OS
by looncraz on Fri 12th Dec 2008 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: New UI not OS"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't see, at all, how the file system would even matter here. Seriously, it is the UI that changes, nothing else matters, to the end user.

For Windows, Explorer, MacOS X - Finder, BeOS/Haiku - Tracker. By whatever name, it is a program that gets changed. Indeed, much of what is being described is already implemented in the only currently feasible ways, considering the OS can't handle all data natively - allow applications to customize Explorer / Finder / Tracker options / or install add-ons for more than just capability reasons ( think patents & anti-trust ).

The interface is the only change, and merely adds more steps to the work flow ( which ain't always bad, but is normally ).

For instance, if I have an "object" (file) on the Desktop or in a folder, and I click on it to open it up or use it for some purpose, a list suddenly fanning out would be bad. There would need to be a pre-requisite for that action - such as double-clicking it, or right clicking. The action list would merely be a menu displayed in another manner.

The "OS" would need to require or rely on the applications, capable of doing something with a given file, to register themselves in a database so that the action can be performed. This is true regardless of the file system. Indeed, the file system would only be useful for performance improvements - and that depends on the implementation.

The actions that could be performed would depend entirely upon the plugins, extensions, or applications installed in the system. Some tasks would be common.

In the end, all you have, is what we already have - with a different look & feel ( which might not be a bad thing ).

For instance, I have some homework - an essay, I need some text input and tools - which means a program to edit the file. There are only a few things I can do with text, but there may be numerous programs on the machine capable of doing it. I double click my essay, and I get a list of actions - Print, Edit [ plus many common options ]... the more options, the worse the interface. ( all already possible in Windows/Ubuntu, with a right click context menu )

For instance, given an image there are only a finite set of unique generic operations: View, Print, Edit. And they aren't so unique, but not all files can be edited.

The end result will simply be to the following effect:

CommonFileActions{ // known as "object" to the UI
delete,
rename,
email,
encrypt,
compress,
etc...
};

SpecialFileActions{
edit = true,
print = true,
view = true
};

That is about it. Files have limited actions which can be applied to them. The only thing we can hope for is a standardized set of open file formats so that operating systems are expected to handle those natively, without relying on third party applications.

And, this all still applies even if the Desktop model itself is destroyed. Something will represent a movie, and there is no valid reason to change view to play for a movie - I mean NONE.

Otherwise, allowing special actions such as "Spell Check" "Blur Image" "Sharpen Image" "Send Virus" just clutters the interface while providing too many options for the user.

Indeed, the only great change in the UI will come when computers are thought controlled, or have a specific special application or placement ( such as on a wall ). Nothing will change too far beyond what we have now on the fundamentals - regardless of how that is relayed to the user. There just aren't enough valid reasons for such a change to occur.

--The loon

ps: I guess I should also mention I am only speaking of the end-user perspective :-)

The true OOP system is merely the implementation in a singular system - a single API, of what already exists. But that plays well into the open file format needs, where the system can treat all images the same way, regardless of format. BeOS can do this, but not all apps on BeOS take advantage of it, nor does Tracker have any reason of doing anything particularly special because of the capability.

Edited 2008-12-12 06:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: New UI not OS
by vaughancoveny on Wed 10th Dec 2008 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE: New UI not OS"
vaughancoveny Member since:
2007-12-26

What g-speak seem to have achieved is that a control, say local only ActiveX, can take over your machines without compromising security and getting other jobs done. g-speak and Microsoft ought to rework the Plan 9 Operating System http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/ . It was not designed with a OOPL so doesn't suffer security risks with Objects, although it works in an OO way. Everything is a file in Plan 9. Bell Labs own only part of it, it was thought as a possible successor to UNIX, but does not replace UNIX.

Reply Score: 0

It hurts
by johnnysaucepn on Tue 9th Dec 2008 17:38 UTC
johnnysaucepn
Member since:
2006-08-22

Cute, but must be painful to use to more than a few minutes. I speak from recent experience trialling touchscreens - they're useful for quick demonstrations, or when you need to briefly use a workstation and then walk away, but the main advantage of keyboards and mice is that you can rest your arms.

Or to use a metaphor you kids will understand, try using a Wii remote non-stop all day long.

Edited 2008-12-09 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: It hurts
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 9th Dec 2008 18:19 UTC in reply to "It hurts"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Cute, but must be painful to use to more than a few minutes.


Which is exactly what researchers found when testing "light pens" in the 60s (the first thing that came to mind after reading the description).

Reply Score: 3

RE: It hurts
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 10th Dec 2008 06:04 UTC in reply to "It hurts"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

...but the main advantage of keyboards and mice is that you can rest your arms.

Or to use a metaphor you kids will understand, try using a Wii remote non-stop all day long.

Not all games require flailing your arms all day (though those that do or are enhanced by it are fun in their own way). And I speak from experience playing having played various Wii games for hours on end. There are quite a few games you can practically play as if you were using a traditional controller, with maybe bump or a pull of the Wiimote every once in a while (if that).

However, I can agree that your point does stand on touchscreens vs. keyboards and mice; with the added bonus that you're *touching* (ie. ruining) an expensive screen. That's what I don't like about the DS (aside from the fact that I can't stand portable gaming).

Reply Score: 2

which problem does it solve?
by renhoek on Tue 9th Dec 2008 17:38 UTC
renhoek
Member since:
2007-04-29

it looks really shiny and nice, but i can not see which problem it solves.

i have an eyetoy, and using your hands to control a computer is really tiresome. there is no way i could work like that for 8 hours a day.

well, maybe i'm just getting old.

Edited 2008-12-09 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 6

It has some uses
by TaterSalad on Tue 9th Dec 2008 18:06 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

It has some uses but is kinda limited to a niche market. Those needing to work with photos or full pages and organizing them this would be good for. Also, this would be great for sports games. Tennis anyone? Imagine a bunch of wii sports ported to this.

But that's where the fun ends. Anyone wanted to type of a document or create content would not find this very useful in its current state. A keyboard would win hands down (pun intended) over this Minority Report like system.

Reply Score: 3

Minority Report gimmick
by Tom9729 on Tue 9th Dec 2008 18:12 UTC
Tom9729
Member since:
2008-12-09

Looks just like the UI from Minority Report. Cool, but of questionable usefulness...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ

Reply Score: 1

Accuracy
by ebasconp on Tue 9th Dec 2008 18:40 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Calling OS to an UI sounds dramatic, arrogant and funny, all at the same time.

The UI is the result of several abstraction layers on top of the real OS and, though the UI metaphors can improve and be easier to the final user, the bare metal will be almost always the same: HALs, memory management, disk management, process and thread management, network stacks and so on.

And about the iPhone-mania (converting everything in "touchable"), I do not know if it will be as useful as my mouse and my keyboard for almost all the things I do [that are things all the people do with their computers].

Only time will tell.

Edited 2008-12-09 18:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Accuracy
by steelgryphon on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:23 UTC in reply to "Accuracy"
steelgryphon Member since:
2006-06-18

Calling OS to an UI sounds dramatic, arrogant and funny, all at the same time.


Even the music is dramatic, pretentious, and funny all at the same time!

To be fair, there should have been a link to more substantive information than a bunch of drooling over UI candy.

http://oblong.com/article/0866JqfNrFg1NeuK.html

provides some insight into the thinking that produced this OS/UI and some other features beyond the UI. If I read it correctly, g-speak is unix-like underneath - this page touts source compatibility with OS X and Linux.

Reply Score: 1

A little impractical
by Vargol on Tue 9th Dec 2008 19:03 UTC
Vargol
Member since:
2006-02-28

You're not going to get many of them in the company office :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: A little impractical
by Joeg1484 on Tue 9th Dec 2008 19:59 UTC in reply to "A little impractical"
Joeg1484 Member since:
2008-12-09

However, what a great way to be able to whack your boss and get away with it...

"I'm sorry, sir! I was just trying to turn the page..."

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: A little impractical
by irbis on Wed 10th Dec 2008 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE: A little impractical"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

When do we get the mobile version of this "OS"?
You could find many uses for this while travelling on a crowded train, for example... ;)

Reply Score: 2

Cool but
by Buck on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:36 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

It looks sort of... different I guess what with no windows and all, but so far people have failed to demonstrate the actual usefulness in day-to-day tasks. Who'd want to wave hands for even simple tasks? You get home tired and it's probably the last thing on your mind... Anyhow, I'm still waiting for some modern OS to come and revolutionize the way we work with computers...

Reply Score: 2

Dumb idea
by google_ninja on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:39 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

This is only usable for incredibly specific use cases. First of all, to work an 8 hour day you would need the upper body strength of a body builder to be able to handle the big gestures. Secondly, every demo was based on zooming interfaces, lets see someone write an email with that thing. It works fine for broad sweeping gestures, but not for anything where precision is required.

Reply Score: 3

UI not an OS
by wodny on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:53 UTC
wodny
Member since:
2008-12-09

As many people have already said - despite what Microsoft says, UI is not an OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: UI not an OS
by BluenoseJake on Tue 9th Dec 2008 21:48 UTC in reply to "UI not an OS"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm pretty sure MS hasn't said that in 15 years. Takes some people an awful long time to get over things. I'm not even sure they said it at all.

Reply Score: 2

recombinant networking
by rajj on Tue 9th Dec 2008 20:55 UTC
rajj
Member since:
2005-07-06

Okay. Seriously. What the hell is recombinant networking?

Reply Score: 2

RE: recombinant networking
by merkoth on Tue 9th Dec 2008 21:06 UTC in reply to "recombinant networking"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

The answer is 42.
Yes, I've given it a lot of thought and I'm pretty sure it's 42.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by macUser
by macUser on Tue 9th Dec 2008 21:41 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

Wow, looks very useful for someone who needs rotate objects in 3d space. How come I never see anybody write a term paper in these demos? Are term papers not going to exist in 21st century?

Maybe its just me, but I think the next user interface needs to be something that can still fit in my office space...

Multi-user input is fascinating though...

Reply Score: 1

Needs holographic display
by alucinor on Tue 9th Dec 2008 22:15 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

Looks like this would be the ideal UI for manipulating holograms around a room. The "computer" would be all around you, scanning how you interacted with real objects as well as virtual objects. I don't think it would replace all kinds of computing tasks, but I could see why some people would prefer using holograms as their UI.

Meanwhile most people on this particular website have been adapting their minds to fit the computer's way of thinking more than the other way around. Human-machine interaction is always a compromise between the two worlds, the real and the virtual, it's just a matter of where the line is drawn that defines the shape of the UI.

In the future, we may see people who "plug" directly into machines and interface like programmers would, choosing the most efficient means possible, and those who use a computer without even knowing they're using a computer by interacting in a virtual environment that completely imitates the real -- that would be the logical conclusion of the two extremes.

Reply Score: 4

kernelwise
by alucinor on Tue 9th Dec 2008 22:17 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

Unless these g-speak creators have invented more than a UI, which I don't understand why they would've chosen such a low level from which to achieve their obviously visual goals, then they're probably using a real time kernel based on UNIX or the like, perhaps even an open source one.

Likely their first customers will be governments and movie studios.

Edited 2008-12-09 22:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v mixedloving
by nikky123 on Wed 10th Dec 2008 02:50 UTC
Beautiful!, but ...
by kwag on Wed 10th Dec 2008 06:47 UTC
kwag
Member since:
2006-08-31

... where's my (Python) command prompt ;)

Reply Score: 1

imagine for games
by ari-free on Wed 10th Dec 2008 08:08 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

the Wii 2. No need to hold a wiimote or worry about throwing it at the tv.

Reply Score: 2

Disabled people
by kernpanic on Wed 10th Dec 2008 09:06 UTC
kernpanic
Member since:
2008-03-15

I'm not sure how useful this interface would be for disabled people / those with medical conditions that severely limits their movement.

Reply Score: 1

Command-line?
by kajaman on Wed 10th Dec 2008 10:14 UTC
kajaman
Member since:
2006-01-06

Just wondering how would command-line work in such environment ;) .

Reply Score: 1

wasted space
by nbensa on Wed 10th Dec 2008 10:48 UTC
nbensa
Member since:
2005-08-29

so instead of table to put my 14" laptop I'll need a room that has like 200 m2 just for the screens... why it doesn't impress me at all?

Reply Score: 1

can he talk ?
by poohgee on Wed 10th Dec 2008 22:42 UTC
poohgee
Member since:
2005-08-13

why is it that everybody seems to forget or ignore voice input & control ?

Reply Score: 2

You aren't getting it.
by Sabon on Thu 11th Dec 2008 23:28 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"An example: Do you want to print a rich text document? Instead of opening TextEdit or Word, then opening the file, then choosing Print from the menu, you should be able to just click once on the file, then select Print from the actions available. You've just saved yourself and your computer a great deal of time and processing cycles."

You have been able to do this for years now. It is the right-click versus the left-click.


Printing is just ONE of the many things you should be able to do with something like a file.

Without opening it you should be able to drag and drop it into another file where your cursor point is without opening it. Obviously that assumes that you want that whole document in the new one but sometimes you do. But instead of dragging and dropping it, how about just picking "insert into file" and it would know to insert into the file you already have open.

Or "send to e-mail" off the menu opened up with the right click. Why can't you just right click on a file and click on "e-mail" and have an e-mail open up automatically?

How about hitting the space bar (like in Mac OS X) and seeing a view of the document. It works and is cool.

How about right clicking on the document and having an option to "search for like files" and have it not just pull up text documents but also a map of say Spain, if Spain is mentioned and you have a graphic file of Spain. Plus other things like maps, if you have maps of Spain. The document might be about Spanish wine so it brings up any document with Spain and Wine or art work or ...

How about ... use your imagination. Stop limiting yourself to what Microsoft's products do. They are trailing behind Linux and Mac OS X. They almost always have been. And they always will since they get their ideas from other companies, not from themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE: You aren't getting it.
by DrillSgt on Thu 11th Dec 2008 23:52 UTC in reply to "You aren't getting it."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Printing is just ONE of the many things you should be able to do with something like a file.

Without opening it you should be able to drag and drop it into another file where your cursor point is without opening it. Obviously that assumes that you want that whole document in the new one but sometimes you do. But instead of dragging and dropping it, how about just picking "insert into file" and it would know to insert into the file you already have open."


Yeah, that would be nice. None of the OS I use have that feature, though it would be useful. Would be nice to have in Windows, OS X and Linux.

"Or "send to e-mail" off the menu opened up with the right click. Why can't you just right click on a file and click on "e-mail" and have an e-mail open up automatically?"

That can already be done in at least Windows. Have not tried it in OS X or Linux to be honest. Not to useful a feature for myself, but it should exist for those that would do that.

"How about hitting the space bar (like in Mac OS X) and seeing a view of the document. It works and is cool."

Good tip. I'll try this one out ;)

"How about right clicking on the document and having an option to "search for like files" and have it not just pull up text documents but also a map of say Spain, if Spain is mentioned and you have a graphic file of Spain. Plus other things like maps, if you have maps of Spain. The document might be about Spanish wine so it brings up any document with Spain and Wine or art work or ..."

Yep, another good idea.

"How about ... use your imagination. Stop limiting yourself to what Microsoft's products do. They are trailing behind Linux and Mac OS X. They almost always have been. And they always will since they get their ideas from other companies, not from themselves."

I only limit myself to what either Linux, OS X or Windows can do. You say trailing behind, I disagree, though that does not mean they are cutting edge either.

With an interface like this, whole new worlds open up. Forget the desktop metaphor in use by Windows, Linux or OS X, as this can go so much further.

Reply Score: 2

RE: You aren't getting it.
by DCMonkey on Fri 12th Dec 2008 00:26 UTC in reply to "You aren't getting it."
DCMonkey Member since:
2005-07-06

Dragging a Word document into another open Word document inserts the text into that document. It's up to the app receiving the document to implement that kind of behavior.

Right clicking a file and clicking Send To->Mail Recipient will create an email with that file as an attachment.

MS messed up by not having a keystroke to activate their preview pane in Vista. At least in Windows 7 they've added a toolbar button for it. Hopefully they'll add a keyboard shortcut as well.

Windows doesn't have a search for like files, but you could add that feature. They provide an extensive infrastructure for extending the shell. I provided a link to the docs above.

Reply Score: 1