Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mjl
From: mjl@ut-emx.UUCP (mjl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaDos vs Unix wildcards/pathnames
Message-ID: <11242@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 89 08:14:30 GMT
References: <352@sagpd1.UUCP> <6294@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjl@emx.UUCP (Maurice LeBrun)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 65

---
In article <6294@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>in article <352@sagpd1.UUCP>, monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) says:
>
>> in article Message-ID: <6235@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) says:
>
>> <UNIX compatibility is important in UNIX systems, not VMS, MS-DOS, Amiga,
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                              ^^^^^
>>   Are we forgetting that Unix and Amiga are merging with the 2500UX ?
>>   It seems to me that we should be working towards a closer user commonality
>>   with UNIX if we are now supporting a UNIX port on the Amiga. It will be a
>>   real pain to have one system with two different sets of wild cards based
>>   on how you boot it up.
>
>Well, so far today, I've worked on system running AmigaDOS, VAX/VMS,
>UNIX, and Aegis.  Each system has it's own commands, it's own file name
>conventions, it's own directory naming conventions, and it's own
>wildcard system.  It's really no big deal to move between such
>differences.  		[stuff deleted]

I disagree completely, to put it gently.  I for one do *not* like to
do SIMPLE things completely differently on different systems.  Complex
things, system-specific things, sure.  But file copies?  Moves?
Directory deletes?  There are about a half-dozen to a dozen operations
BASIC to ANY hierarchical file system, and there is no bloody way I
want N different ways of doing them for N different systems.

Standards are always difficult in their adoption, and this is no
exception.  Unix conventions *may* be a good model here, because (a)
it is popular and growing in popularity geometrically and (b) it is
pretty well thought out.  To witness (a), a lot of computer 
manufacturers now offer Unix or a Unix-like file system as standard or
an option (Cray [UNICOS], Dec [Ultrix], Apple[AUX], NeXT [Mach], C/A
[AMIX] !!, the beat goes on); as well as look-alikes that run under
the native OS (Eunice or Dec/Shell under VMS).  Dec's VAXC compiler
even offers automatic translation between Unix-style and VMS-style
pathnames.  Where Unix *obviously* needs improvement, go for it!
Otherwise, tread very, very carefully, and compatibility at *some*
level is a good thing.

For the record, the very existence of the 2500UX is encouraging.
However, I don't necessarily want the *entire Unix system* running
on my machine, and don't think an all-or-nothing approach is the
only solution.

Dave also offers the following anecdote:

>This reminds me alot of the arguments that crop up occasionally over in
>comp.lang.c.  Every so often, some fan of Pascal or Modula2 gets up and
>starts complaining about how C uses "=" instead of ":=", "==" instead of
>"=", "&&" insead of "AND", "%" instead of "MOD", etc.  [stuff deleted]

Well, I used to own both a '70 Camaro and a '74 Vega (still have the
Camaro :-).  As you might guess, they drove *completely* different,
though it wasn't too hard switching between them.  But then, the
steering wheels were in approximately the same place, as was the brake
pedal, accelerator, dash gauges, turn signals, mirrors, seats, radios...

>Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"

Maurice LeBrun		      |   "So then I says to Borg, `You know,
Institute for Fusion Studies  |  as long as we're under siege, one of us
University of Texas at Austin |    oughta moon these Saxon dogs.'"
Internet:                     |
  mjl@fusion.ph.utexas.edu    |                   (Far Side)