🚀 go-pugleaf

One DOS lover wrote:
>For example, to display a file under DOS, I use
>'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots
>easier to remember than 'cat.'

A UNIX supporter replied:
>That's your opinion.  I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I
>never use "type" on my UNIX box.

An "intuitive commands" promoter commented:
>I have a PD program called "look" on my 286 and am constantly annoyed
>that I don't have the same ability on Ultrix or Sys V3.

If you are on UNIX, and you long for that DOS friendliness, all you need,
at worst, is a shell which duplicates DOS.  Not that difficult a task.
Until someone supplies you with one, you can:
 - change your prompt to a 'C:\>'
 - alias "dir" to "ls"; "type" to "cat"; "rename" to "mv" etc
 - and so on.

If you are on DOS, and you yearn for the feel of a "real" OS,
you should download a program like 4DOS or pc-shell which will
give your nasty PC, AT, or 386 a warm csh-like feel.  Until then,
you can:
 - set prompt to 'favorite-unix-machine%'
 - patch COMMAND.COM (very easy with DEBUG) to rename "dir" to "ls" etc
 - rename all the external DOS commands to UNIX ones

All of the changes made above, are changes to the command interpreter,
or user-interface.  These changes do not have much to do with the
underlying operating system.

Real operating system questions are questions like:
 - Can it multi-task?  				DOS:no  UNIX:yes
 - Is it multi-user?				DOS:no  UNIX:yes
 - Does it eat up huge chunks of memory?	DOS:no	UNIX:yes

Almost any operating system can be made user-friendly or user-hostile.
It's a feature of the user-interface, and that's upto the user.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
just another pearl of wisdom from the Teknowraith, alias:
	 __                   _
	 |_)  _  |_      |   (_      |, |_ |_   _   _  |,  _  __
	_| \_(_|_| )_(_)_|   __)_(_)_|\_|_,| )_(_|_| )_|\_(_|_|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------