SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Explore some of the more useful but perhaps more esoteric capabilities of the Bash shell with the blog post Ten More Things I Wish I'd Known About bash. It is a followup to the highly visible post by the same author on Ten Things I Wish I'd Known About bash. Modern shells like Bash, Ksh, and Zsh have over four decades of developent and refinement, making them powerful, flexlble, and fast user interfaces for efficient work — not just excellent scripting languages for automation.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ten *More* Things I Wish I’d Known About bash
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 63 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:21PM (15 children)
You have to write software forever and all you have is the unix shells... and the scripts keep getting larger... larger... (no perl, that is a different hell--maybe purgatory)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:53PM (12 children)
In hell . . .
* you get Usenet, but there is only one newsgroup: alt.soc.rec.talk.comp.news.sci.misc.
* You only get Windows 3.1
* On an 8 MHz 80386
* The only programming language is Perl
* The only shell is command.com
* The only editor is edlin (that would stop the fighting about vi vs emacs and make people thankful for the hard work that went into both!)
* A whopping 2 GB hard drive!
* For only $7995!
* And 9600 Kbps dialup!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:30PM
2GB is too large. 80MB would be much more realistic for the hardware you're talking about. Even then, that would have been top of the line.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:21PM (4 children)
I could deal with all of that except edlin and command.com. I feel my tourrettes acting up again, gotta go.. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:39PM (3 children)
Given that you have Perl, it should be easy to avoid using command.com almost completely.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:43PM
And I'm sure you could re-implement vi in a dozen lines of Perl.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:13PM (1 child)
Perl also turns the f$!#%ing tourettes into a programming skill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:30AM
ROFL - best comment of the day
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:33AM (2 children)
That must be with the Turbo button disengaged.
The slowest 386 was 16MHz.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:33AM (1 child)
The first ones were rated at 12 MHz.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:15PM
The only reason to go with the 386 is to be able to run Windows 95. Which was sluggish enough on a 486, and had to be complete molasses on a 386. Windows 3.1 ran okay on a 386, and would even run acceptably well on a 286.
Of course, that assumes the luxury of a hard drive. My first PC did not have a hard drive, but it did have 2 floppy drives which was more than what some people had.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:12AM (1 child)
2GBs my word. My 7MHz XT had 21 megs I had reams of games and business applications and three different OS / shell variants and I don't think my hdd utilisation ever reached 25%
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:14AM
Also, none of that sounds so bad. Windows 3.1 is a helluva lot better than windows 95 and you gave me perl and an internet connection so I can make that machine do anything that is worth doing. Although on those specs i'd probably just stick with DOS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:40PM
You made me feel old. I remember Windows 3.0. I remember editing with debug.com (a DOS command). I don't remember how, but I remember doing it. My first dialup connection from home was over a 1200 baud modem with no AT commands. I had to dial with my phone when establishing a connection--both ways, in the snow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:37PM
As long as I get to write all the shell scripts myself, and have access to all necessary documentation and enough time for development, I don't see a problem.
Of course, being hell, it will probably be a big heap of existing, badly written scripts to modify, not enough time to even understand one of them, and no accessible documentation for anything.
(Score: 1) by rootsquasher on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:30PM
So true. I would take bash over perl any day.