🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.828243225@rscernix> danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>In <stephenkDp17xt.Boo@netcom.com> stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) writes:
>
>>In article <danpop.828050308@rscernix> danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>In <stephenkDowqB9.F4E@netcom.com> stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <danpop.827809042@rscernix> danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>>>In <4j6lv1$k3r@news.mpd.tandem.com> Joseph Crowe <jcrowe> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You have NO idea what you are talking about!
>>>
>>>If this is true, then remove /bin/sh and try to reboot your Unix system.
>>>It's as simple as this.  You'll see who is the guy who has NO idea what
>>>he is talking about.
>>
>>I DID!
>
>And what happened?

It worked just fine, because I ALSO set things up to handle it in /etc.  You
remember....the place you said we shouldn't do anything with!

>>If you delete lotus 1-2-3, you can't use that program!  ERGO, if you delete the
>>shell, you can't use the shell.  SIMPLE!
>
>If you delete /bin/sh you can't use the system at all, because this
>program is a critical OS component.  SIMPLE, indeed.
>

NOPE!  That is OVERsimplification.  It is a command line processor, nothing
more.  You can replace it with another, or use programs.  HECK, you COULD
put your own program there, and make things VERY secure!  It would be like a
BBS I once ran.  It was on the apple II.  I told people I would pay $1000 if
they could break in!  I actually had it multitasking, and one of the tasks
rebooted it if it wasn't running a program.  Hence, if they got it to go to
the command line, it would reboot before they even saw the prompt.  With
UNIX, you could do that one BETTER!

>>>I fail to see how your "point" relates to your claim than /bin/sh is not
>>>part of Unix.
>>
>>I said it wasn't necessary!
>>>
>>>>system means "send command to SHELL"!!!!!!!
>>>>popen means "open a SHELL and use a pipe for terminal I/O"!!!!!!!
>>>>cron means "send a command to the SHELL at a particular time"
>>>>
>>>>NOW HOW do you send a command to a shell without having the shell, HUH?
>>>
>>>This was precisely my point, which shows that I knew perfectly well what
>>>I was talking about.  system(), popen() and cron are parts of the Unix
>>>operating system.  Remove them and you have something which isn't Unix
>>>any longer.
>>
>>WRONG!  
>
>Shouting is not a good substitute for a proof.

You state that a program, whos purpose is to send a command to a routine, 
SHOULDN'T need the routine!  That is like saying that a bank shouldn't have 
money!  What a silly idea.

>>I HAVE looked!  Many programs *I* write DO run a SHELL, albeit NOT SH.  KERMIT,
>>for example does NOT, even though it forks itself off.  OTHERs that execute
>>programs don't.  WHY??????  Becuase they EXEC, and DON'T call system.
>
>Completely irrelevant.  Another program, written by someone else, will
>stop working, despite being a correct Unix application.  Hence, your
>Unix system will be broken.  cron will also stop working, and it is
>another standard Unix component.
>
>>>>I am planning on getting rid of getty, and have in the past!  
>>>
>>>So what?  If you don't use it, does it mean that it isn't part of Unix?
>>
>>ACTUALLY, unix itself is a KERNEL.
>
>By whose definition???

By the industry, and by AT&T(the writers of same).

>
>>It merely controls tasks.  It isn't 
>>multiuser, can't take directories, etc....  Auxillary programs, that have
>>been adopted as standards, and thus CONSIDERED, part of UNIX make it 
>>multiuser, etc...
>
>Plain bullshit.  Without multiuser support in the kernel, your "auxiliary
>programs" would never make Unix a multiuser system.

Look at inittab sometime!  UNIX starts init, which is told by inittab to start
several programs.  Among these are programs LIKE getty(but not necessarily getty
) 
that are directed to various terminals.  Things like user are on a task basis,
so making a multitasking system with accessible tty possibilities multiuser is 
EASY.

BTW one user on one terminal could be logged in as HUNDREDS of users.  Try login
sometime!

>>>
>>>>Let me set you straight, ok???  UNIX is TRULY only a multitasking system which
>>>>has all things running at a high level.  init manages tasks, or which one is
>>>>getty.  getty simply waits for a signal to start login.  login starts the
>>>>shell(which could be ANY program)!  
>>>>
>>>>ifconfig?  That is simply for NETWORKS!  Are you telling me the macintosh has
>>>>NO ability to configure networks?
>>>
>>>I'm telling you that without these components, which are all "Unix 
>>>applications, pure and simple" your Unix system won't work at all.  It's
>>>as simple as this.  You can definitely design an OS which will work 
>>>without them, but that system won't be Unix any longer.  Got it?
>>
>>MANY unix applications DON'T use these!  BBSs VCL, for example, can REPLACE the
>>shell, and doesn't need any other!  cron is used only if you want.  Some NEVER
>>use ifconfig(I didn't for over a year on this system, ,still haven't after 3
>>years at work)!
>
>So what?  There are plenty of Unix applications that rely on those
>components to work as advertized and which would break themselves if 
>those basic Unix components stop working.  What's so difficult to
>understand?  Who cares that my "hello, world" program will continue to
>work?

And there are macintosh programs that rely on Lotus 1-2-3!  What's your point?

>>>>>Plain bullshit.  Remove all the system utilities from /bin /usr/bin /sbin
>>>>>/usr/sbin, etc and see what you can do on that Unix system.  After all,
>>>>>you still have the kernel and the libraries.
>>>>
>>>>Try removing all the system files on the MACINTOSH, and see how far you get!
>>>
>>>We were talking about "applications, pure and simple", not about system
>>>files.  I didn't ask you to remove any of the Unix configuration files,
>>>only "applications, pure and simple", like /bin/sh, right?

These applications ARE system files!

>>It is those unix configuration files that dictate what applications it will 
>>need,  and you KNOW it.  I HAVE had to run without nearly everything.  I
>>made a minimal boot disk(which incidently had NO sh shell!), 
>
>Sorry, the idea was to have "no shell", not "no sh shell".  Can you spot
>the difference?

As I said, you don't need ANY shell!

>
>>and HAVE done
>>what you requested.  It actually runs BETTER!  
>
>You must be using a very personal definition of "BETTER" :-)

By better, I meant faster and in less memory!  HECK, do you REALLY think I can
fit over 300Meg of code onto a 1.44MB floppy?  The shell I generally use is 
over 250K, so I even have to forego THAT!  BTW I originally had NO ifconfig,
and STILL have no cron, on those disks!

>>Of course, I want to have more 
>>flexibility generally.
>
>And you want to have something that could be called Unix and used as such,
>not something that after booting doesn't give you the full functionality
>of the OS, because lots of standard components don't work any longer.
>

Try running every program for the mac on your computer.  I GUARANTEE that many
won't run!  One person I know, for example, sells a contact manager that 
REQUIRES ACT!(another contact manager)!  WHY?  Because his "programs" are really
templates.  Programs I write at the office generally require synergy(a DBL
runtime).  

UNIX has been around for a LONG time!  Some apps are now STANDARD.  It has a 
program to print banners, one to do calenders, one to copy to another system
over a normal serial port, several to use a serial port as a network.  Several
to use ethernet, etc......   NONE of these are "NEEDED" to use the system, but
some programs ASSUME they are there.  Some of these programs have counterparts
for the mac.  What happens when you want to run one of these on the MAC?  HMMM?
they have to ALSO add the needed programs that are generally on UNIX systems!