Shells

Computers are an archaic construct that involves relying on a piece of silicon for basic human needs, such as socializing (instead of grunting to your paleogf), getting food (instead of hunting wild ibex), learning information from unknown people (instead of your tribe master), storing/making images (instead of painting it on cave walls), listening to music (instead of the tribe shaman playing the bone flute and chanting godly phrases).

>>>/luddite/

Attached: 0615-neanderthal-cave-art.jpg (600x400, 137.87K)

If you're a racist, you probably won't like bash.

That and it sources man pages for options too.

No. I I'm just

Quite often though, emacs just works. Look how superior the built in TRAMP mode is to anything any other editor has. Even the trendy 'sublime' only adds SFTP access as a paid plugin lol.

I've never found shell rice tasty.
Bash is sufficient. Any scripts I've written since the Roman empire fell run well on current hardware without portability issues.

Yes I've had experience with others ksh, csh, etc. but bash preferred.

me. Why the fuck should I larp? Do I read like someone who comes from Zig Forums, the most cucked board on earth?

Why? I'm not racist. I just don't see a reason to use anything other than bash/dash. It doesn't need systemd and as long as it doesn't want to take over my computer, I don't really care. When I'll need to maintain my sovereignty from systemd/shit software. I'll switch.

Just imagine: using a computer for something other than writing software.

...

...

Why do you think they had to invent the seals?

Sealead letters can be resealed.

I know but it was one of the first methods of autetification.

I don't need to write a line of code to build and configure a server rack.

Changes nothing on the fact that the pgp is more secure.

You implied that letters being compromised is a recent phenomenon, which it isn't.

Nacionalism is thing that predates since the 1500s.

bash just werks and is good enough for usage in scripts.
fish tries too hard to appeal to normalfags and I found it too annoying to use.
zsh is my favorite for personal use. I set it up to show the last command that matches what you have so far (so if you regularly ssh to some machine, typing ssh shows the last ssh command you used). I also made it so that certain things change color, commands are green, improper commands are red, etc.

What language is this?

bash vs tcsh used to be a holy war on par with emacs vs vi.

Congratulations, you've made yourself feel smug while reaffirming why shells are useless.

I'm not sure if you're contradicting me or supporting me, but I'm literally using using Eshell in the related video. I notice that on 8ch specifically, people will often times misinterpret my post and attack my from being wrong by refuting me with my own opinion. I don't know if it's my prose, because it's this site specifically, but I'll elaborate.

My point was that Emacs surmounts all of the shitty idiosyncrasies of a shell because it interacts directly with the kernel, meaning it has the exact same functionality of a shell without being tied down to a retarded interaction paradigm.

For example, in the video, someone is moving the point upwards in the buffer while killing and yanking text, something that typical users can't even pull off with a decent terminal emulator without a shitty plugin; in Emacs, this is just obvious, inherent functionality, not even a quality of life feature.

Furthermore, Eshell being an Emacs mode itself means that it can tap into a much more mature ecosystem. When I mentioned tab completion, I was referring to the fact that so many people laud Zsh's laughably simplistic completion when Eshell can tap into multiple completion paradigms, the paradigms themselves being something that can be altered and augmented. For example, in the picture, Helm is being used for completion; comparing that to Zsh is like comparing a sculpture to a 2d cutout, and I'm pretty sure Zsh users have never even heard of fuzzy completion.

Of course, I do most everything in dired. And the amazing thing about that is dired and Eshell use the same primitive functions: they're fundamentally the same but radically different means of interaction.

That's a really obscure form of mockery, but I assume you're implying that shells are fundamentally necessary to interacting with your operating system. That's blatantly untrue, as evidenced by literally the video included with the post you were replying to. In fact, you just revealed the absurdity of your own point by deconstructing it like that. It really does make you seem like a luddite.

That was just some shitpost. I'm absolutely against shells and GUIs, I suggest a voice-based alternative where you issue sophisticated commands. The Emacs fag might know what's up, maybe he watched the control emacs by voice video.

Maybe a better thing would be direct psychic contact via shamanic chants with the Great Wooly Mammooth who would fulfill all our computing needs instantenously.

Attached: 300px-Levallois_Preferencial-Animation.gif (300x255, 256.44K)

I think he was just mocking the Emacs' fag post, and using the same wording he did.

Attached: 300px-Levallois_Preferencial-Animation.gif (300x255, 256.44K)

also, nothing wrong with being a luddite

bash is perfectly fine. eshell is better though

Sorry, I had misread your post. I thought you were describing emacs as the ecosystem of abandoned projects.

I could have bashed out "Downloads" in the time it took him to arrow up, yank using some no-doubt absurd key combo using two or three modifiers, arrow down, and paste

Low number of keypresses isn't the thing you should be focusing on. Speed and efficiency is.

the autocomplete and image editor open was pretty neat though

Click Downloads, click image.

What is your opinion on spacemacs?

A fine introduction to Emacs if you're coming from Vim.

At some point you should drop it and create your own config though.

Keyboard is still faster - doubly so since my hands are already likely on it.

Ahh that seems to be the consensus. It's enjoyable for a few weeks, and then users want to ditch it.

Without tweaks, Zsh essentially functions like Bash with better tab completion.

Armlet opinions don't count.

I used to use Bash, and was looking into the different shells recently. I don't feel learning a non standard shell is very worthwhile for my needs, but also don't like the over dependance on bashisms out there, so I settled on dash.

#!/bin/sh
Back to enjoying my at least half functional fish shell.

How does that compare to zsh?

No, that's pretty true. It's better than Zsh, though, for the simple fact that Emacs packages aren't often written solely for a single mode and thus have a larger audience.

...

The true cancer is an OS designed with multiple programs. What we need is a monolithic entity, inherently cohesive, which exposes a contextually aware interface to the user. It is utter insanity that we need to develop "intelligent" shells to guess sane things to complete, and that we need glue tools Sed/Awk just to stitch various programs together that communicate in different formats. Instead of programs to run other programs, the os must provide it's own I/O interface.

The user doesn't need to see the contents of /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin or any other system tool. These should all be provided by the I/O interface to the system.

What looks nicer anyways, a Cathedral, with fine attention to detail, literally a building dedicated to God, or a Bazaar, a rag tag group of crowded Arab shop keepers in makeshift market stands?

What are you opinions on Powershell and/or the Plan9 shell?

I haven't used either, but I would suspect both end up being closer to my idea of an OS. From what I recall, Plan9 is still comprised of small programs isn't it?

I believe so. But I think the way in which you invoke commands is very flexible throught the system. For instance in ACME you can just add your own commands to the program, via text labels. Almost like allowing users to add and replace function pointers inline with third party programs as functions. I guess pipeline-like in implementation, but not in concept. It's interesting if I'm understanding it right.

For what you're talking about, maybe MS's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system) would be interesting to look at.
If I'm understanding it correctly, they were like "what if C# / Powershell was an OS." Or You could probably think of it in other terms like "what if the J(ava)VM was just the JM and you used a nicer syntax (scala or whatever is hip today) on top of it".
This style also seems to blend practical interactive user experiences without compromising flexibility at a technical level also.
In theory everything would be managed and assertions could be made in practically the entire OS, where everything could just interact with anything in the native syntax, no need to bounce around to different bindings and indirection layers and shit.
It could be safe, fast, and ubiquitous. In theory at least. This would allow you to utilize complex-modular behavior, without having to design/implement it yourself.

I'm not sure if explaining all these concepts conveys what I'm thinking. I'm not familiar with any terms used in that space. Not many people seem to talk about OS design, at least, not new concepts. The most people would do if they saw an OS built in a managed language would say
and that'd be that.

Attached: hsg-12-19-14-01.png (1117x643, 85.13K)

Come to think of it, TempleOS is like this too, but with HolyC as the language.
So, not much in terms of advanced features with concise syntax, but the integration is there nonetheless.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x480, 15.12K)

Isn't that the core linux philosophy? Systemd tried breaking away from that and look how mad the nerds get.

Is s (the suckless shell) any good or just a meme?

user, I...

It definitely is, and it makes it much more convenient for a community project. Once we have a good idea of what sort of systems we want though, then I think you have an opportunity to swoop in and do some systemd level restructuring. Layered systems are always nice to think about conceptually, but they always create opportunities for inefficiencies.

If such a system truly was one monolithic program instead of just providing the appearance of one, it'd be necessary to build it with dynamically linked libraries, and a kernel intelligent enough to use some sort of cache system to manage linked in libraries. Otherwise you'd fill up RAM quite fast. The above scheme is essentially what is happening with multiple binaries anyways, with frequent ones ending up being stored in cache.

And then you're strictly limited to what the interface is aware of. The *NIX philosophy works because of *composability* and *ubiquity*, not because of some massive Kernel/Userland/Shell/AllTheThings wannabe.

If you're lamenting that the tools suck, that's fair, but the answer is to improve them, not throw away decades of work on something that stands little chance of succeeding and will make everything worse.

LOL

Pipes, you dumb fuck.

Pipes are nice in concept, but not all the programs speak the same protocol, so you end up needing cut, tr, awk etc to glue the bits together.

Yeah because counting words in a file is a real good use of my 4ghz 16gb system. lol I'm going to stop now because even thinking about this shit is depressing as fuck.

ftfy OP

"Gluing those bits together" is the whole point.

What would you rather have, "list_directory_and_filter_by_size_greater_than_one_meg.bin" (and it's million attendant variations) or a handful of commands that can be given their own options to do the same thing, and those options trivially modified?

Besides, if you find yourself using the same set of pipes over and over again, you shove it into a script. Problem solved.

not an argument

Without getting hung up on the syntax (it doesn't have to be lispy), I would like something like...

(filter dir (#.size > 1M))

Not that user but I think the argument is that it's inefficient both in CPU time AND developer time.

What are your opinions on Powershell?

If you are looking for a shell that uses the least resources and is the most efficient for proccessing and minimalism, then use DASH. It uses 72KB of ram compared to bash's 480KB on my system in memory. Now multiply that out for every shell script you run and see the memory saved/lost.

I have not had a chance to use it, but I'll look into it.

What are you fucking retarded ?

makes ya think

Pipes are the work of daemons. Cease immediately!

Attached: foglio.jpg (688x833, 142.49K)

Yeah I give up. A one way pipe. It's like the mario of operating systems.

I use tcsh.

This, mainly because of how the history search works by default. I first used it in FreeBSD and have used it ever since, even on other platforms. It's nice, but I wonder of other shells. If something better has come out since. A lot of my friends use fish.

Wow Poettering check the CoC jeez

>>>/trannypol/
Worse than a larper

Smooth-brained lefties

We need a better standard, like if Zsh becomes a standard

Spotted another commie who hates the free market

A programming language feature that out-do pipes

More like crack-pipes am I rite?

I used to use AST korn shell but it's a bit too bloated so I switched to openbsd's pdksh fork. It lacks some features such as here-strings, named arrays and some parameter substitutions in variables but it performs amazingly.

I use zsh. Is mksh any good?

I am not the emacsfag but PowerShill is slow and disgusting. update-help doesn't work, etc.

D tab w tab would have done it.

fish.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (452x124, 9.31K)

Is there a way to turn on reverse-i-search in bash by default when you open terminal? Fucking scrolled through bash manual and didn't find any info on that.

Not that I know of, but fish is more or less like that all the time, in case you haven't tried it.

It's a mess of a project and hardly better than its origin, pdksh (and especially its OpenBSD fork), but any shell would be an upgrade from (((zsh)))

No dipshit. Getting real work done and leaving the software plumbing to the blue collar faggots trying to tell me they are a software "engineer". No. You are a plumber. You, at best, build infrastructure so that men can get some real work done.

That's mean.