A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set
FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2
    Windows NT 10.0 Chrome 70.0.3538.110

    A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand Set

    I wanted to write a SuperCommand set that can be used in command line mode for Linux (and can I say UNIX) but am bringing that up here for few reasons

    1. Maybe I reinventing the wheel & such sets already do exist. If such command supersets exist please let me know here
    2. I am not a Linux expert by any means & there has be Linux geniuses out there with far more experience who can do a much better job than me

    What I am proposing essentially is an extension of the existing Linux Command set into a superset that is
    1. Easier to use for experts
    2. Easier to learn for beginners

    I have used Linux on & off over the years but when I come back to use it I am always using a different distribution or shell & all the command line options are harder to relearn and it also seems not all commands etc are not consistent across distributions (not a major issue for me but still an annoyance).

    My proposal based on this experience is to expand & extend the existing command set (leaving the existing command set in tact & as well as it grows in future) for command line options for each command by simplifying each command when used with an option. This is my simple initial example.

    For instance let us take the basic command “ls” which lists the files in a directory but the problem is it has scores of options and one cannot remember it unless you use it everyday. But you say , use the “alias” dummy, to save all your most used commands. Aha exactly my point. However not all users use all command line options for a specific command.
    Continuing with “ls” command . What if I created a superset of commands (now using alias & then saving it permanently an user\bin or bashrc file or wherever) for ls commands.
    This aliasing could give me 100s of commands for “ls” alone
    Here is a partial list to explain my point

    Super existing PreHelped
    -command command SuperSuperCommand
    ---------------- ------------------- --------------------------------
    lsa ls –all lsah
    lsA ls -A lsAh
    lsar ls –all -r lsarh


    Piped PreHelped
    Super existing Piped
    -Command commands SuperSuperCommand
    ---------------- ----------------- -------------- -----------------
    cdlsa cd.. | ls –all cdlsah
    cdrlsa cd / | ls –all cdrlsah

    So here is a brief explanation
    lsa is self explanatory . What is a PreHelped SuperSuperCommand ? if you suffix a h to any given supercommand then detailed Help for that SuperCommand will popup first & after a user presettable delay (for user to read the help) of few seconds, the SuperCommand will be executed & results displayed (or optionally the user can say press the escape button to stop the SuperCommand from executing if they only want to read the Help). Of course it would be a nice option if the user by default can toggle to turn off (or on) execution of command after Help is displayed at individual (super)command level.

    I am sure by now you know what I mean by piped SuperCommand & PreHelped Piped SuperCommand

    Many may object that this is unnecessary spoon-feeding for newbiew but I disagree because the Help presently is not context sensitive in Linux but just displays a huge list of command line options many of which I have no clue as somewhat experienced user.

    Many experienced admins may have more ideas to expand on this concept (like I did for Piped Super Commands). Maybe if you have a different prefix other tha h (like I did for help here) may be you can develop similar SuperSuperCommands . Maybe you can use a standard prefix before any superCommand such an any character to have Linux do something else (if this is possible) .
    Your imagination is the limit.
    It does not matter if people came up with fifty different superCommand sets of their own personally (using alais function) or for each distribution at system kernel levl but hopefully eventually they can all be consolidated in some sort of Linux standard.

    I used the “alias” as a method of creating these SuperCommands. Even if they can be made permanent using something like a bashrc file it is still primitive. I hope these SuperCommands can be absorbed by Linux distributions at kernel command level just like other regular commands (because these SuperCommands shoul not effect the existing commands and are basically aliases)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,016
    Linux Firefox 60.0

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    OK, first I am not a good judge of what will become popular/standard and what will fall by the wayside, so perhaps this idea will take root, but I have my doubts.

    I am not sure that adding a whole heap more commands is going to make life simpler.

    Having a new set of commands that are highly similar to the existing set will, I suspect, just make it confusing. I would try to come up with an entirely new set - much like using dir rather than ls. Perhaps take the functionality of GNU Coreutils and rework it using some sort of unifying structure/language to bring that consistency you seem to desire.

    There are some things, like QWERTY keyboards, and English spelling, that no longer make much sense but we are sort of stuck with them. The GNU Coreutils is probably another example of something that would be different if we threw it out and started again, but has just too much inertia.

    User error. Please replace user and try again

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,364
    Linux Chrome 70.0.3538.110

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    As for your question, Can you say Unix, GNU stands for Gnu is not Unix. Linux is described as Unix like. Oddly enough MacOS is an official Unix. To be certified as an official Unix, you have to pay a lot of money.
    So, you could say Unix like but, if talking about Linux or a BSD, you shouldn't say Unix.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2
    Windows NT 10.0 Chrome 70.0.3538.110

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    Quote Originally Posted by smr54
    As for your question, Can you say Unix, GNU stands for Gnu is not Unix. Linux is described as Unix like. Oddly enough MacOS is an official Unix. To be certified as an official Unix, you have to pay a lot of money.
    So, you could say Unix like but, if talking about Linux or a BSD, you shouldn't say Unix.
    You want to take this outside pal ? LOL just kidding

    Your reply has only confused me a thousand times more because it seems you threw in Apple to either both to show off and or to confused me exponentially .

    Best part of your reply I loved is when you said I have to pay lot of money . That really really really hurt my feelings.

    Peace out
    Last edited by merothadzproxy; 2nd December 2018 at 06:17 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,364
    FreeBSD Firefox 62.0

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    Hrrm, not sure what confused you. Can you say Unix for Linux? Linux is not Unix. However, for something to be certified as a Unix, they, for example, Apple, has to pay a certifying body.

    AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris are all certified Unix systems. FreeBSD and Linux aren't, however,in an O'Reilly book about Unix administration they were covered.
    https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like

    Linux and the BSDs are considered Unix like. The point I was making by mentioning Apple is that it's not all that important if somethng is officially Unix or not.
    Sorry if there was confusion or if you thought I was trying to belittle something or someone.

  6. #6
    GallComp's Avatar
    GallComp is offline Nuke 'em Alfred! Administrator - Starring in Bill & Steve's Bogus Journey
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Fontana, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    2,506
    Mac OS X 10.14.1 Chrome 70.0.3538.110

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    Moving to a proper section of the forums. Please read the title and description of the sections before posting a new thread.

    "Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy. "


    BILL GATES...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    374
    Linux (Android 6.0.1) Chrome 70.0.3538.110

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    I vote no. You admit to being an occasional Linux user yet you want to alter basic operations of the system. You're free to modify your system any way you like, which is the beauty of Linux, but I for one don't think your changes are improvements. But nothing prevents others from adopting them and maybe others will use them and they may become popular. But they offer nothing for me.
    When professors and janitors begin working for free you can have your free education.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    MT USA
    Posts
    951
    Windows 7 Firefox 63.0

    Re: A proposal for a Linux SuperCommand set

    I vote no too. More commands isn't going to make it easier to learn. That said, if you have aliases you want to setup, go for it.

Similar Threads

  1. Partition proposal
    By giorgos in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th February 2010, 02:01 PM
  2. GPG signing proposal
    By Nokia in forum Suggestions & Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23rd August 2008, 06:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •