Dedoimedo's article about DosBox

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by Shankle, Jan 24, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shankle

    Shankle Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Posts:
    510
    Dedoimedo makes the statement about how difficult the Dos command line was. I thought it was pretty
    straight forward. Whereas the Linuz command line is a bloody nightmare and is one of the reasons
    I will never permanently switch to Linux. Along with the other nightmare called "Grub".
    IMHO as long as the many Linux distros have no central organization and the command line
    attitude persists Linux will never succeed.
     
  2. katio

    katio Guest

    I'm the first to say what's wrong with Linux for desktop users and rant about that at length but you lost me there, Linux command line (whatever that is, do you mean the shell or applications or what?) being a nightmare compared to any other command line?

    OK, so you grew up with DOS and Linux means you need to learn something new?
    My DOS knowledge is very limited. My first Window OS was 95 and all I use is cmd.exe for is some primitive bat scripting and a few commands. Could you share some examples and experience?

    How I see it is, DOS is a primitive OS with very limited functionality. Consequently it will be easier to get to know all functions. Linux on the other hand is a modern OS with an incredible powerful command line environment. Usability comes second, the primary goal is giving power to the user and enable them to automate all tasks. However it also has seen constant improvements to the usability over the last decade. In cmd.exe I always miss bash with completion, history search, sensible keyboard shortcuts and so on.

    What do you mean by "central organization"? A GUI for system configs? SUSE has yast, In KDE you have one for EVERYTHING you can think of (if it works... but KDE4 is much more stable and feature complete now). In Ubuntu there is no "attitude" like that, it's the opposite and long term Linux users actually don't like that at all (see the power of habit).

    GRUB is a different topicl. If you don't dualboot* or switch to/from Windows every reinstall you should never have to touch it at all.
    Lots of distros today ship with Grub 2, actually it's Grub 1.9 something and officially therefore still alpha stage. GRUB 1 is very easy to understand and configure from the command line.
    You probably weren't aware that there are graphical tools for Grub too:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_2#GRUB_configuration_tools

    *Dualbooting OSs from different vendors is a pain no matter what you use. *BSD is much worse and even the grand usability expert Apple has its issues with booting Windows on Macs.
     
  3. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    You talking about d-fend reloaded?
    Mrk
     
  4. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    The bash shell has been around forever and is pretty well regarded by most people. The DOS prompt is laughable in comparison. It's nowhere near as powerful or flexible.
     
  5. tekkaman

    tekkaman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Posts:
    164
    The thing is that Linux varies too much in it's distros. Commands differ from each version. It should be the same commands for all of them.
     
  6. katio

    katio Guest

    There is the debian way and the red had way. At the risk of getting flamed, the rest is niche and you can ignore them (and if you know either or both other distros won't be that difficult to understand).
    Anyway, you don't need to distro hop constantly. Use one, understand it well and you are much better off.
     
  7. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Dos command line has many limitations and weaknesses, including limited functionality, offering different functionality to GUI equivalents, basic scripting options, poor/inconcistant documentation.
     
  8. Shankle

    Shankle Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Posts:
    510
    I'm not implying that the Dos Commands are more powerful than the Sudo commands.
    And I see the need of a more powerful OS than Dos. That again is not the issue.
    The average user will not stay with any Linux distro that ties them up in Sudo commands.
    In this day and age it is not necessary to be forced to use the Sudo commands.
    They are fine for the Linuz Pro but nobody else.
    About a central organization for Linuz. I think Tekkaman stated it better than I did.

    I will never ever dual boot again and get involved with Grub.
    I have a setup now that works just fine without being involved with Grub.
    I run Windows Vista on the HD in the computer.
    When I want to use PcLinuxOs I have an external drive that it is on. If I turn on the
    external drive up comes PcLinuxOs. If I turn off the external drive up comes windows.
    I'm happy , I can have my cake and eat it to.
    Don't get me wrong I am not hostile to Linux. I certainly have my dislikes with windows.
    One, the excessive cost of the never ending OSes. The cash cow of Microsoft etc. etc..
     
  9. katio

    katio Guest

    Ok, I think I understand now where you are coming from...
    Those "sudo commands" are a copy and paste affair for the most part and only required if you either do something out of ordinary (but then you are no longer an "ordinary user") or if things "go wrong". Admittedly they go wrong more often than they needed to, especially with those distros that stay on the bleeding edge.

    I'd challenge you to use Ubuntu LTS on compatible hardware for ordinary day to day usage and tell us how often you needed to open the Terminal and type in a command, let alone one you needed to understand as opposed to just pasting it in.
    From my experience, I think I almost never had to but I could be wrong about that, I regularly use the Terminal, because it's much faster for a lot of tasks.
     
  10. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    I had the same impression before i tried it. I mean, really, actually using GNU/Linux.
    The truth really is that you hardly touch the command line, unless you want to.

    Many commands you see in tutorials and forums are not without an alternative GUI way of doing it.
    For example, "apt-get install package-foo" - really, you don't have to do that if you don't want to. Launch Synaptic, search for the package, and install it, all in a gooey, gooey way.

    The reason they're giving you those commands is that, it's actually simpler to help you that way, or that's how they do it. Just copy paste, no screenshots needed.
     
  11. redgrum

    redgrum Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Posts:
    50

    If you ever find yourself in a situation again where you need 2 OS's on one HD, you could do worse than give EasyBCD http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1 a twirl, that way you can boot your Linux from your windows bootloader :) If it messes up, you can use it to fix the damage too.

    it's a lot easier to chainload XP's ntldr without 3rd party programs, but Vista/7s bootloader makes it much more of a headache with bizarre command line tools, so this program is a nice gain of time. And pretty GUI that people dipping their toes into the linux world will appreciate
     
  12. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    In what respects? Updating? I don't get it.

    If it's not in there it can be added or removed one way or another.
     
  13. katio

    katio Guest

    Runlevels, /etc layout, kernel compiling and of course package "management" (which is more than install and remove) that sort of thing.
    It doesn't really apply much to the average desktop users. If you try to get a Linux related job you want to learn redhat/centos anyway so this argument is a bit of a red herring.
     
  14. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    I understand that, I know where you stand on this ;) , I was asking for the input from the poster.

    What's so different? I manage debian based and redhat based daily and the commands used do not differ that much at all. Sure I have been working with *nix servers for a few years but on a daily basis is one system that much different than the other? No. Sure there are some differences, as noted, but anything that will break the bank IMHO again, No.

    For example, I went from Corel->Suse->RH->HPUX->Ubuntu->RHEL they are all trivial moves.

    Just saying
     
  15. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Exactly. My wife and my children run Ubuntu without any problems and they haven't ever touched the command line - because they don't need to. Generally, the average user doesn't need it - very special circumstances (and some geeky distros) apart. However, for the more experienced user it's a very powerful tool.
     
  16. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    So you are complaining about the "command line attitude" of Linux but yet you tout how much you loved using the command line in Windows? Hmmm.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.