RE: OT - Shutting down an RS/6000 ?

> From: Hans Boldt
>
> Just curious - Would "CPYF" be more understandable than "cp" to
> someone who doesn't know English?  ;-)

If you know that CPY is the term for copy, and F the abbreviation for file,
then you automatically know that CPYF copies a file.  Not only that, if you
know DLT is the term for delete, you know that DLTF deletes it.  You may
need a little more knowledge to understand that physical and logical files
are different types, and so require CRTPF and CRTLF commands, but even so
they're far more consistent than anything in the Unix world (although I have
to give kudos to the guy who had the foresight to name the "make" utility).


> While on the subject, which OS/400 command do I use instead of "cp":
> CPYF or CRTDUPOBJ?

One duplicates an object, the other copies data.  In OS/400, we think of
these things differently, unlike Unix, which treates everything as a stream
file.  But this is an operating system difference, not a command syntax
issue.


> Which OS/400 command do I use instead of "mv":
> MOVOBJ or RNMOBJ?

Again, OS/400 views these two operations as different things.  One moves an
object and the other renames it.  The fact that Unix does both with one
command is neither a plus nor a minus, simply a difference.


> Oh yeah, which OS/400 command do I use instead of
> "rm"? DLTOBJ? No, there's no DLTOBJ command. I first need to know
> the *type* of object before I can figure out how to delete it!

The fact that OS/400 has strict type casting isn't a bad thing.  This way,
it's unlikely that I'll accidentally delete a program when I'm trying to
delete a file.  However, there are plenty of people who agree on this minor
point, and create their own DLTOBJ command, so you've got a valid criticism.

I didn't say that OS/400 was without blemishes, nor that it's command syntax
was perfect.  Just that it's a whole lot more logically organized than Unix,
and that makes it easier to use.  Nothing you've said contradicts that
point.


> Look Joe, I don't mean to criticize OS/400, but its command set can
> be just as confusing to a Posix programmer as the Posix command set
> can be to an OS/400 programmer.

Not the point.  EDX commands are intuitive to an EDX programmer.  We were
talking about the ease of use to a non-user.  The point I made was this:

"Unix commands are named non-intuitively, the parameters are inconsistent
and error prone, and there is no prompting."

You've said nothing to address those issues, you've just said that Unix
commands are easier for Unix programmers.  I would hope that's the case.

And it's no secret you're a Unix bigot, Hans.  It's just sort of curious
that you're developing a language you don't like on an operating system you
consider inferior.  I can't quite grasp that.  It's like someone who likes
Fords building Chevys.  Or an anti-gun advocate designing AK-47s.

Joe