metashell - User Friendly Shell

Tue Jan 29 16:02:35 UTC 2008

On 29/01/2008, Justin Wray <wray.justin at themetashell.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> My name is Justin M. Wray, and I am the Project Owner for metashell.  Sorry
> that is has taken me a few days to respond, I have been following along via
> my Blackberry, but haven't really had a chance to sit down and formulate a
> response yet.  Also, let me thank 'Pysco' for the publicity of the project,
> and I am glad to see users are enjoying it...
>
> All this being said, I feel that the current conversation is going in an
> entirely unneeded direction, and that there is a lack of communication
> between the metashell project and Ubuntu, thus the goals are not clearly
> being defined.  Remember this is an Open Source project, not necessarily a
> "Ubuntu" project.

Assuming the goal is to make it easier to open files from the command
line then there are 2 approaches.

1 Write a shell scratch that has the ability built in

2 Have a good command with a good name that people can discover
without already knowing it

The conversation started with #1 but has moved to #2. Probably because

1 switching shells is a reasonably disruptive experience if you've
been building up configuration over the years
2 the new shell will almost certainly be missing some or many of the
features which you love
3 the new shell has an unknown security/bug status
4 being non-standard, the new shell is unlikely to be install on
random-unix-like-box that you encounter day to day so you will be back
to your old shell for this situation
5 it breaks the unix philosphy of do one thing and do it well which
implies that a tool which combines 2 unrelated functions would
probably be better if it was 2 separate tools
6 what about the executable bit in the file permissions?

#6 is really fun - "hey n00b, edit this text file - ~fergal/great-story.txt"

n00b does types

~fergal/great-story.txt

and has his homedir nuked because

cat ~fergal/great-story.txt
#! /bin/bash

rm -rf ~

So in my opinion, writing an entire shell saves you 2 characters of
typing (or 5 if you only have "open" and not "o")  but has enormous
drawbacks. So it seems like a non-starter to me.

I have addressed some of the other items below.

> Below is my comments, to the different aspects being discussed.
>
> On 1/27/08, Forest Bond <forest at alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:33:55AM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > On 27/01/2008, Forest Bond <forest at alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> > >> Are you advocating the creation of a program called "open"?
> > >
> > > No, I said "alternatives-based". That is, using the Debian
> > > alternatives system to provide access to one preferred tool from
> > > amongst many similar tools.
> >
> > Okay, I follow you now, although I think alternatives is for managing
> different
> > binaries that have the same capabilities, not just the same name...
> >
> > >> Perhaps I was not clear before.  What you are looking for already
> exists,
> > >> and it is called "see" (or, perhaps more appropriately, "edit").  These
> > >> tools pull data from mailcap.
>
> 'see' or 'edit' are external (ie not part of the shell) binaries, that must
> be installed on the system to work, and rely on external applications and
> preferences to perform the tasks.  The goal of metashell is to integrate
> these functionalities into the environment the user is working within, the
> shell.  Thus no external dependencies, nor will the user need to know these
> 'commands' to simply open a file.

You still have to install metashell. Does meta shell also provide a
full posix shell - as would be needed for all of the system scripts?
If it does, why should I trust it when bash is widely used, well
supported etc.

The point is that I will still need bash + something else, in one case
it's "see", in another it's "metashell" so the argument of fewer
dependencies is not really correct. Also, see is used by other things
on the system, finally it's Ubuntu, you'll be installing hundreds of
packages anyway, + or - one is not a huge issue.

> > >
> > > You were perfectly clear, however there is definitely some
> > > miscommunication. In my last mail _I_ mentioned that see reads from
> > > mailcap and now for some reason you are explaining exactly that to me
> > > (it was in the part you snipped).
> >
> > Indeed, I misread.  Apologies.
> >
> > > So let me rephrase my points
> > >
> > > 1 there are multiple tools which do roughly the same thing - see,
> > > gnome-open and probably k-something-or-other and no unified location
> > > for preferences for these tools
>
> Exacly, there are plenty of ways to determine a mime-type, and plenty of
> other ways to open a file in a default application.  But I think everyone is
> missing the point.  I'll break it down, these functionalities are not built
> into the shell and require package X, and setting X, to work, something a
> "new" user may not know about, or better yet even have installed and
> configured.

Agreed.

> I'll use gnome-open as an explain as it was specifically mentioned.  This
> obviously requires gnome to be installed.  What if the user is on a KDE
> based system?  Maybe not even Ubuntu?  What if they use XFCE, Flux, or the
> best example CLI only?  How is a user on a non-gui system going to obtain
> the benefits of gnome-open?  What is gnome-open going do for you when X
> fails?
>
> But even funnier, the gnome-open example just doesn't fit.  It is an
> application that doesn't REALLY do the same thing.  Maybe from a real
> high-level it appears to obtain the same solution to a problem, but that is
> only true if the metashell configuration resembles the freedesktop (.desktop
> ) configuration.

You can only makes these arguments because you chose gnome-open. If
you had chosen "see" then none of the above applies, it is a console
app with minimal dependencies and a simple text-file config.

> Specifically mentioned was that gnome-open can also open directories.  Can
> someone explain to me why anyone would open a CLI shell, and then use
> gnome-open <directory> to open a directory in nautilus?  So do you mean an
> application which goes from CLI-GUI does the same thing as a shell with the
> ability to (based on your configuration) to open a pre-set application,
> based on file type, and can change directories, without the need for command
> 'cd'?  Sure  typing 'cd' is not a big deal (and you can us 'cd' in
> metashell), but that isn't my point, the point is you don't need 'cd', and
> gnome-open doesn't do the same thing.

I think you must be making some other point here but I don't
understand it. If you don't want to open directories in a GUI
file-browser then don't.

> > Right, now I understand; integration has always been a sore spot for
> open-source
> > software.  Competition is a good thing, except when its happening on one
> machine
> > (especially when that machine happens to be your desktop). :)
> >
> > > 2 multiple tools which do roughly the same thing is no problem
>
>
> Agreed,  nano and vi?  There are plenty of tools that do the same thing,
> each with its own pros and cons.  Everyone has their own preference of the
> best tool to complete a task.
>
> > >
> > > 3 multiple locations for the same preferences is a bad thing and while
> > > sometimes necessary, should be avoided where possible
> > >
>
> Same preferences?  I don't believe that preferences for your default CLI
> applications are the same as preferences for your default GUI applications.
> metashell is used to maneuvers in a CLI environment, and the configurations
> should reflect such.  The defaults shipped do rely on GUI applications, but
> that by no means is a requirement, you can simply change gedit to nano or
> vi, and use metashell on a system that doesn't even contain X (as in Xorg).

I don't want multiple locations for the preferences. Whether I can
different behaviour in GUI more vs console mode is an entirely
different matter. If I can configure it make a distinction, it should
also be in the same location.

> > > 4 if you don't already know the name of the tool, you are unlikely to
> > > be able to find it
>
> Agreed, and this is a really good point.  Why should we assume that Ms Joan
> next door is going to know to prepend 'o', 'open', 'see' or even
> 'gnome-open' before a file name?  You have no idea how many times I have
> seen someone just simply type a file name, when I ask them to open a file.
> Or cat the file first, to determine the type, and then open with whatever
> application.

You have left out "open" which is what I've been advocating and it
seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. Sure, just typing the name
on it's own is nice but see #6 way up above.

> > Agreed up to this point.
> >
> > > 5 "open" seems to be the obvious name for such a tool. It was the
> > > first thing I tried, it's what's left when you remove "gnome-" from
> > > "gnome-open", it's the verb that appears under every File menu I've
> > > ever seen. It seems quite discoverable. "edit" is also quite
> > > discoverable however if you're just trying to open something to see
> > > it, you're unlikely to try "edit"
>
> Doesn't matter why someone trys, if the default for the file to just open,
> we get past all of this "command-blank" completes this and "command-this"
> does thats, so on and so-forth.  metashell is not a project that is to
> provide a way to simply open a file, but it is instead a project aimed at
> making the shell a friendlier place, without taking the power out of the
> users-hands, a hard balance to strike.
>
[snip]

> > > It would also be great to have a central mime-type -> action database.
> > > I think that's part of freedesktop but unless see and edit pay
> > > attention to it, the problem is not fully solved,
>
> This is absolutely untrue.  A central type-to-action preference, would
> assume that a user always want to use such action.  When I open up my
> home-folder in nautilus, I want gedit to open any text file I double-click
> on, but 90% of the time, when I use a text file on the command line I am
> using nano or vi, and the other 10% cat.  I very rarely use gedit from a
> command-line.

Again, you are conflating "a central location for file-action
preferences" with "a single preference for every file type".

Ideally I would be able to specify with a --flag, request to
interactively choose or have it automatically determined based on my
environment.

However I do not agree that I want 1 set of prefs from the cmdline and
1 set from X because I almost always run my cmdline _in_ X. So using 2
separate databases for prefs 1 for metshell, one for gnome, doesn't
actually solve that problem.

> If we follow this logic, we can take out every application that preforms the
> same task, and give the users no choice, slap a (photo of a 'Super-Key') on
> the box, and sell it for far more then is worth.

Given that I've already said multiple tools for the job are a good
thing, I don't know how you can derive this conclusion.

> > Here's where I definitely agree.  Other systems have this, to some extent.
>  It
> > seems like the desktop-specific systems ought to manage mailcap, doesn't
> it?  Or
> > is mailcap too outdated to be practically useful on the desktop?
>
> I would agree that a type-to-action database should be present per
> enviroment, one for CLI based settings, one for each WM, etc.  But not for
> the entire system.

Again, if my CLI is running inside my WM, I don't want my PDF file in
a text console!

F

> > -Forest
> > --
> > Forest Bond
> > http://www.alittletooquiet.net
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >
> iD8DBQFHnT5ZRO4fQQdv5AwRAtdNAKCeVVGtSBcFOds5zIgVlVdXS0uBnACfSc+d
> > JRYE47aTvDUngIHwY+Y+jP4=
> > =b6zx
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
>
> The point of all of my comments is this:  metashell is not a project with a
> goal simply to "open" files.  It is a project with the ideas of creating a
> user-friendly command-line environment.  That uses intuitive commands (or
> lack there of) to complete tasks.  While all at the same time allowing the
> well-versed *nix admins complete complex tasks without hesitating.  I really
> hope after reading this email, everyone better understand the goals of
> metashell, and the diffrence of usings it verses an external application
> like 'see'.
>
> I would like to thank everyone for their comments on metashell, and look
> forward to hearing more.  So far the response to metashell has been good, I
> hope to continue to make the CLI an easier, less intimidating place, for new
> users.
>
> If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to email me,
> or the metashell lists.
>
> For more information, please checkout the metashell website,
> themetashell.com
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Justin M. Wray
> Project Owner
>
> Website:  http://www.themetashell.com
> Support:
> http://www.themetashell.com/index.php/Help:Contents