Re: [COFF] Other OSes?

That's an interesting topic, but it also gets my mind thinking about UNIX features that were wonderful but didn't evolve as computers did. My two examples of this are editor scripts and shell scripts.   In the day, I would write at least one shell script and several editor scripts a day.  Most of them were 2-4 lines long and used once.  But they allowed operations to be done on multiple files quite quickly and safely. With the advent of glass teletypes, shell scripts simply evaporated -- there was no equivalent.  (yes, there were programs like sed, but it wasn't the same...).  Changing, e.g., a function name oin 10 files got a lot more tedious. With the advent of drag and drop and visual interfaces, shell scripts evaporated as well.   Once again, doing something on 10 files got harder than before.   I still use a lot of shell scripts, but mostly don't write them from scratch any more. What abstraction mechanisms might we add back to Unix to fill these gaps? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clem Cole" <clemc(a)ccc.com> To: "Bakul Shah" <bakul(a)bitblocks.com> Cc: <coff(a)tuhs.org> Sent: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:23:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [COFF] Other OSes? On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bakul Shah <bakul(a)bitblocks.com [1]> wrote: On Jul 4, 2018, at 10:56 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org [2]> wrote: long! ] - Capabilities (a number of OSes implemented them -- See Hank Levy's book:   https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/ [3] - Namespaces (plan9) ​+1 for both​ _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF(a)minnie.tuhs.org [4] https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff [5] ᐧ Links: ------ [1] mailto:bakul@bitblocks.com [2] mailto:wkt@tuhs.org [3] https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/ [4] mailto:COFF@minnie.tuhs.org [5] https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff