Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:6308 comp.unix.xenix:12242
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sci34hub!cdthq!gary
From: gary@cdthq (gary)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix vs. UNIX
Message-ID: <5P7HL3w161w@cdthq>
Date: 29 Jun 90 01:16:27 GMT
References: <4716@thebes.Thalatta.COM>
Organization: Garys' Home for Obselete Computers
Lines: 35

campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
> 
> Every time I get on a ``pure'' UNIX box I miss Xenix commands
> like ``copy -romv'' and 'l'.

If you're on a SysV.[23] system, write yourself a bunch of shell
macros to emulate the commands you miss. I use a bunch, since I
do admin work, that save me from typing. I also create them on
the fly while doing debugging work. For example:

ll () { ls -al $* ; }    is a shell macro in my /etc/profile. It
        executes the ls -al with parameter substitution, and
        stays within the current environment.

pe () { ps -ef | sort ; } is another I use on my mail hub (at work).
        On the other systems, I have a grep -v in there to get rid 
        of anything with "root" in it, so I see only users' processes.

Shell macros can be multi-line, have multiple commands per line
separated with semicolons, and are memory resident so they don't
have to be searched for along a path (cuts down on system load,
too, especially if you use explicit paths to the commands).

Macros can be passed positional parameters just like a shell,
can include loops, and basically do about anything a short script
will do, faster. The only disadvantage is that I haven't found a
way to edit them in the environment. They can be redefined, though,
so you can maintain them in a small file and use . to reload
them after editing. Short ones (two or three commands) I'll usually
retype, longer ones I'll debug as scripts and then change to a
macro.

I think more recent versions of Xenix support this, too....

Gary Heston, at home...