Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 20th Mar 2006 07:13 UTC
General Unix After receiving several comments to his November 2005 article on hating UNIX, David Chisnall offers his responses and further insight on his continuing disdain.
Thread beginning with comment 106092
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Shell Globing
by Vanders on Mon 20th Mar 2006 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shell Globing"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow. You've managed to reply to my post without ever reading it. You havn't even the slightest understanding of the small out-of context parts of my post that you've quoted. NIce work.

Heres the executive summary for you:

1) I never said globbing was bad.
2) I never said "mv *.foo *.bar" was wrong as it is currently implemented
3) I never said "mv *.foo .bar" was wrong either.
4) It boggles my mind that anyone could think having two tools that do only slightly different things could be a good idea.
5) UNIX tools are not traditionally interactive.
6) You've completly flown off the handle and entirely missed the point of the article, the arguments raised within, my reply and no doubt, this reply as well.

Well done. You qualify for your UNIX beard and certificate of "Approaching Computing as a Purely Academic Excercise".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Shell Globing
by Ookaze on Tue 21st Mar 2006 09:06 in reply to "RE[7]: Shell Globing"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

1) I never said globbing was bad.
2) I never said "mv *.foo *.bar" was wrong as it is currently implemented
3) I never said "mv *.foo .bar" was wrong either


Of course not, you just said "if the globing were somewhere both the shell and the application could access it and control it's behavour, commands such as "mv *.foo *.bar" would actually have a chance of working".
Except that "mv *.foo *.bar" and "mv *.foo .bar" work.

4) It boggles my mind that anyone could think having two tools that do only slightly different things could be a good idea

Look who will talk about "Purely Academic Excercise" later. In the real world, people make other tools that make slightly different things, but are more specific, like mv and rename.

5) UNIX tools are not traditionally interactive

Like ed/ex, terminals ? Most are not, yes. I doubt that's a tradition.

6) You've completly flown off the handle and entirely missed the point of the article, the arguments raised within, my reply and no doubt, this reply as well

You just failed to explain how, like a good troll.

Well done. You qualify for your UNIX beard and certificate of "Approaching Computing as a Purely Academic Excercise"

And again, like a good troll, you forgot conveniently that I said I use the shell practically in my work.

Reply Parent Score: 1