Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: Dec. 05 2007,16:44
|I don't think anyone's having an argument here, but it's just that it seems people don't know what _can_ be used|
I only wanted to clarify something because I saw some misleading or presumptuous comments. I don't even see the discussion as a "Windows versus Linux" thing because BASH isn't Linux and Linux isn't BASH -- there is no Linux shell, per se, because Linux is just a kernel.
Windows' console reflects the shift from command-intensive computing in the days of DOS to almost exclusively graphic environments. The Windows console isn't a selling point because DOS adoption was slow because it wasn't user-friendly the way GUI-oriented computing is. Most users don't want to memorize commands and flags/variables, much less have to remember where files are. GUI makes computing more accessible to more people because it's easier to learn gestures like dragging and dropping and clicking on icons and browsing through a set of nested directories.
For better or worse, Linux is headed in the same direction with less and less console interaction and more and more GUI interaction. That's especially more likely to occur as Windows refugees embrace KDE- and Gnome-based distros. They do so not because of access to better shells, but because they're familiar with the shared concepts in user interfaces. And if I'm right that more people will use Linux on mobile devices like phones and PDAs (and smaller platforms like the XO/Eee) than on desktops, it's even more likely they'll not encounter shells while running Linux except for the same purpose(s) they're forced to in Windows: troubleshooting.
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)