Re: Fred Linux Annoyance List.

Thus quoth Kwan Lowe on Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:43:58PM -0400:
> >> 13) Most Unix command line are really obscure and clueless, I mean DOS
> >> was
> >> simple:
> >>     copy, del, dir, backup, restore, chdir, rmdir, mkdir, echo, rem,
> >> diskcopy
> 
> Interesting. I've always found DOS commands to be totally non-intuitive.
> For example, you have "del" for delete, but "rmdir" for removing a
> directory. Why not "deldir"?  Inconsistent. Don't get me started on
> DELTREE.
> 
> You mention the "rem" command, which IIRC, is for REMARK. I can imagine
> trying to "remove" a file using that command. No errors return because
> it's just a remark, but that's inconsistent with every other language.
> Don't confuse this with REN, which was used to rename files, and MOVE
> which was used to rename directories (this changed in later versions).
> 
> Then there's xcopy. You need this specifically for directories. It took a
> long time to figure this one out.
> 
> Then there's the crazy "find" utility. I want to find a file I'll use
> something called "find" but DOS find doesn't do that.
> 
> DIR?  How is this more intuitive for listing files than ls? Then there's
> all the flags for DIR that make no sense. /S for a recursive listing? You
> type "DIR ," to view hidden files and "DIR ..." to show files without
> extensions, unless you're in Win95/98 then it'll look upwards in the
> directory tree.
> 
> CHDIR? By your own reasoning, why not CHANGEDIR? Same for MKDIR.
> 
> Want to unhide a file? There's ATTRIB, but why not just call it "UNHIDE"?

Much problems in computing are due to ignoring Gates's Law:
	640 KB is enough for anybody

While MS-DOS is not ideal, nor intended for expensive multi-user systems 
where Unix fares better, it is an Industry Standard OS with more than 
100,000,000 copies sold. Its greatest strength is its resistance to 
innovation (read 'software bloat'). MS-DOS is easier to install, cofigure,
and learn its command set. MS-DOS is effectively no more expensive than
Linux. MS-DOS does not require an expensive 32-bit processor. MS-DOS is
happy with a megabyte of RAM, and leaves 90 % for use by applications.
MS-DOS does not have the silly mouse thing. MS-DOS does not have these
Internet annoyances. MS-DOS has no kernel keeping you from accessing
your hardware. There are a million application programs that will run
on MS-DOS.

Kind regards,


Daniel von Asmuth


-- 
	If Gates had meant us to use Windows,
	He would have given us three hands.