Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!psuvax1!schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu From: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: on shells and os features Keywords: shell, wildcard Message-ID: <4205@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Date: 11 Jan 89 19:43:48 GMT References: <28200249@mcdurb> <451@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <1951@scolex> <1121@raspail.UUCP> <2618@ficc.uu.net> <5657@cbmvax.UUCP> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Reply-To: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Organization: Pennsylvania State University, Computer Science Lines: 14 In-reply-to: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) In article <5657@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax (Randell Jesup) writes: > You're talking shells, not "Unix". It should be possible to write >a shell for almost any usable computer, a shell that does wildcarding >ala Unix. Correct, of course. But consider this: standard features affect how utilities will be designed and used. Most unix programs expect to take a list of items on the command line. If you put a unix style shell on VM/CMS, say, you will also have to replace lots of utilities, like LISTFILES. At this late stange in the evolution of these systems, certain characteristics are so deeply ingrained that they can't be easily changed. -- Scott Schwartz