[Coco] Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Hi,

Mannequin* wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:52:29 -0700
> "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
> [...]
>> All of the items you indicate I have been thinking about. I have been
>> unable to start a discussion as to a new shell for one and all that
>> would be nicer.
>
> Maybe people are happy with what the NitrOS-9 team is doing? I,
> personally, am quite happy with the original OS-9 Level II shell!
> (Despite whatever may be wrong with it. *grins*)

That's great!

They have done a wonderful job. One that had it not been done would make
much of what I am thinking about not possible.

They of course did it in part so it could be improved even more. That's the
important part about producing the source for NitrOS-9, not just a set of
patches.

I am not suggesting a replacement for Shell 2.2a (Or whatever version). I am
proposing an another one for different users part of the time. I will be
using perhaps several different shells in the future. And you can lay on top
of them very special programs for specific tasks. DSAVE is one example, it
produces a script for the Shell 2.2a to execute. I am currently preparing a
script using various tools on my Windows system to copy files from FLEX
disks to OS-9 disks. I need to look at the Basic09 program I wrote long ago
to prepare a script to copy files from OS-9 to an IBM format disk. And one
for xfer to and from DECB disks. That might be a quicker way to prepare the
desired scripts.

I have wrote large and complex scripts for Shell 2.2 using many features
that might be underused by many people. I also wrote a Shell 2.2 helper
utility called "SDIR". It is on RTSI although I only uploaded it to Delphi.
It makes the typing of long and complex file and folder names unnecessary
and free of typing errors.

>> We seem to be stuck in many ways at the point in time when OS-9 was
>> created for us. Time is way past the point where we should have started
>> looking at changes that improve OS-9, even drastic ones. The basic
>> operation of OS-9 should be open for discussion. I look for small
>> changes that provide large benefits.
>
> [...]
>
> Tandy started a movement to an easier shell... They called it gshell,
> and/or MultiVue. If newbies want something easier than the OS-9 shell,
> then let them use MultiVue. Once they can grasp the understanding of what
> is actually going on, then let them move on to the more advanced OS-9
> shell.

I think there are improvments that can be made in the MultiVue shell. That
will occur later as it is not crucial to the changes I am thinking about.

Of course MultiVue would be available for users as will any shell that might
be developed at any point.

Text based OS Shell's are easy to do as they are mainly a text processing 
task.
The preparing of a OS call to start a module being a small and common part 
of
all shells so that part has already been done. Just define what the text
processing input will be, parse it and call the OS call builder.

> I personally do not see where the problem is here. Linux is pretty much
> the same way in my eyes. You have BASH (or equiv.) and then you have the X
> windowing system (or equiv.) Take your pick, or use them both to get what
> you want done.

I contend that a Shell might be written that will turn many heads should it
ever be done. I am not at this time making any plans to write it as it is a
complex shell with a large number of features that work together to really
improve the user experience of a text based OS. I very much feel that I am
blind when I cannot use it. YES, BLIND. That is why I have used it since I
first saw a trial version included on the very first set of blank 3.3" disks
that I purchased and continue to use some of its features every day in
Windows XP. (Lotus Magellan 2.0).


> Now when is someone going to port OpenOffice.org over to OS-9? ;)
>
> -M.

I have no plans or any desire to do so. But you never know.


Stephen H. Fischer