On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Justin Dearing <zippy1981@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They're both different animals, and as a user of PASE and QSH, which POSIX
standards it follows are really not my benchmark. I'd rather frame it like
this:
I agree with all of that. I was trying to say that "standards" wasn't
a useful way to talk about it.
Your original message mentioned QSH and Qshell. These two terms refer
to the same thing, but "Qshell" is just for verbal or prose use, while
there is an actual QSH command. The analogy for Unixy folk would be
QSH : Qshell :: sh : Bourne shell
Note that the QSH command can also be spelled STRQSH.
I don't know all the answers to the specific points you brought up,
but in my view (as a former Unix user and still something of a fan),
someone who is very proficient in some flavor of Linux or Unix will be
"annoyed but comfortable enough" with either QSH or QP2TERM for
certain shell tasks. Probably QP2TERM will be the less annoying of the
two, but both of those are still fundamentally 5250 green-screen
interfaces, so don't expect to do typical stream-style console-based
interaction. In other words, definitely nothing like curses, and even
a lot of basic "interactive" stdin/stdout/stderr stuff will be broken.
For example, the 'more' command is almost completely broken (good luck
reading anything other than the first page with it). Anything that
can't just run to completion without user intervention is basically
unworkable on either QSH or QP2TERM.
In case the distinction was not clear, QP2TERM and PASE are not the
same thing, though the shell that opens up when you call QP2TERM runs
in PASE.
John Y.
midrange.com
