metashell - User Friendly Shell
wray.justin at themetashell.com
Wed Jan 30 11:53:56 UTC 2008
On 1/29/08, Fergal Daly <fergal at esatclear.ie> wrote:
> 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
> > my Blackberry, but haven't really had a chance to sit down and formulate
> > response yet. Also, let me thank 'Pysco' for the publicity of the
> > 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
> > "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
This is the approach of metashell, but remember metashell has other goals
too. metashell is not only attempting to make opening files easier (with
the support of mime-types), but is attempting to make the shell easier (for
2 Have a good command with a good name that people can discover
> without already knowing it
This obviously would be a great choice for an experienced Linux user, but
will have no benefit for someone who is struggling with the entire concept
of the CLI.
The conversation started with #1 but has moved to #2. Probably because
Agree, the conversation has shifted. I stress again, metashell is not only
opening files, there is more to the project, please check it out for
1 switching shells is a reasonably disruptive experience if you've
> been building up configuration over the years
True to an extent, but all shell scripts (including bash) will work within
metashell. Therefore I cannot think of any configurations (assume we are
talking shell wise?) that would now be unusable within metashell. If you
have an example, please let me know, so we can address the issue, as well
consider that a bug.
2 the new shell will almost certainly be missing some or many of the
> features which you love
I'll agree with this one. I like Thunderbird over Evolution, for a number
of reasons. When forced to use Evolution, I almost undoubtedly find a
feature missing. I am sure you have plenty of applications that you are
biased towards. And undoubtedly, you find features missing in all of the
rest? Linux verse Windows? OSX verse Windows?
But on the same token, metashell strives to contain the same feature of your
tradition shells, while also offering the user-friendly features. And if
there is something missing, we would love to hear about it, so that it can
be considered for a new release, etc. However, if you still seem to be
missing something, and obviously know your way around CLI, metashell may not
be for you. Lets not forget the audience here.
3 the new shell has an unknown security/bug status
The shell is currently in beta. At this time one security flaw has been
found, and patched within the next release (two days later). The flaw was
the very same issue found on every Windows release, and reproducible in any
shell, by adding a dot (.) to your PATH.
Other then the project being in beta, and the one addressed security flaw.
How is this unknown?
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
Poor argument I fear. What if see isn't installed? What if your other
solutions aren't installed. Ever come across a system that didn't even have
bash installed? They exist.
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
Partially, obviously metashell is combing multiple functions, but that
doesn't mean that it doesn't do them well, nor does it mean that the "one
thing" is really bringing multiple benefits together. There are plenty of
tools that do multiple things (emacs), and some are amazing and installed on
thousands of distros, but that doesn't mean they break the unwritten code.
6 what about the executable bit in the file permissions?
Really good point. Let me note however, that the executable flag must be
set, or the file will not be executed. metashell respects the normal file
#6 is really fun - "hey n00b, edit this text file - ~fergal/great-story.txt"
> n00b does types
> and has his homedir nuked because
> cat ~fergal/great-story.txt
> #! /bin/bash
> rm -rf ~
This has been discussed plenty of times. It was originally worse, when your
working directly was queried before your typical PATH, but has since been
fixed (at least from that standpoint).
A few ideas have been proposed.
1. Force the user to indicate the working directory (./) when addressing
executable within the directory. Using a message like, this is an
executable, if you are sure you wish to run this file, please add a ./ to
the beginning of the filename.
While idea one sounds okay, it does veer away from the user-friendliness.
And trust me, I am asked all the time, why do I have to put ./ in front of
everything, as it is.
2. Prompt the user when an executable is in the working directory. This
file is an executable and may contain malicious code, are you sure you wish
to run this executable? (yes/no)
Or something along those lines. But this will quickly become distracting.
The thought at this point is to go with option two, and then simply allow
the notice/prompt to be turned off via a configuration entry.
Nonetheless, this is a system-wide issue and more importantly a
user-awareness issue, and has no more to do with metashell then any other
shell or environment. But this issue is of utmost importance to the team.
Any ideas on the situation would be greatly appreciated.
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.
It isn't about saving keystrokes (although the additional two characters do
add up). It's about being user friendly, there is more here then simply
opening a file based on association.
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
> > be installed on the system to work, and rely on external applications
> > preferences to perform the tasks. The goal of metashell is to integrate
> > these functionalities into the environment the user is working within,
> > shell. Thus no external dependencies, nor will the user need to know
> > '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.
Yes, it is a full (POSIX) shell, requiring no other shell be installed on
the system. That includes bash. So all system scripts would still work.
This has nothing to do with trust. If you don't trust it, look at the code,
or just use BASH. Your missing the point. If you are more worried about
"support" or an already established community, over new features, then BASH
is the right choice for you. It is all about choices.
And on top of that, you obviously have no issues finding your way around the
CLI, so metashell has little advantage for you. Could you use it? Yes.
Would there be any learning curve. No. Would it do the same exact thing as
your current shell. Yes. Does every command that works within BASH work in
metashell, yes. But that doesn't matter to you, so continue to use
metashell. Again I ask you to consider the audience, and more important
that fact that there is more to this project then simple file association.
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.
Untrue, explain to me why you would "still" need "bash + something else", I
may have miss your point, or you may be mistaken. metashell will still work
on the system even if bash is not installed. The only time you will have a
dependency on bash is when you are running bash-scripts (surprise-surprise
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > (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
> > into the shell and require package X, and setting X, to work, something
> > "new" user may not know about, or better yet even have installed and
> > configured.
> > 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
> > best example CLI only? How is a user on a non-gui system going to
> > 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
> > only true if the metashell configuration resembles the freedesktop
> > ) 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.
Okay, true, but it seemed as if "gnome-open" was the option of choice.
As for 'see', it would obviously be an option if you plan to continue to use
BASH, or another shell alternative. For those looking to have a more user
friendly shell, and a better learning environment, I see this as less of an
option. But it is all perspective.
> 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
> > application which goes from CLI-GUI does the same thing as a shell with
> > ability to (based on your configuration) to open a pre-set application,
> > based on file type, and can change directories, without the need for
> > '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',
> > 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.
I don't want to open a Terminal window, and then use gnome-open
/home/myusername/work/ and have the directory open in nautilus. You're
right! The point is, that is what using gnome-open would do.
In metashell you type in a directory, and it will chdir() you to that
The point was gnome-open is not REALLY a viable solution on a CLI system, or
when you want to work within the CLI only.
> > 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
> > 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
> > best tool to complete a task.
> > > >
> > > > 3 multiple locations for the same preferences is a bad thing and
> > > > 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
> > metashell is used to maneuvers in a CLI environment, and the
> > should reflect such. The defaults shipped do rely on GUI applications,
> > that by no means is a requirement, you can simply change gedit to nano
> > vi, and use metashell on a system that doesn't even contain X (as in
> 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.
Agreed, a central configuration (possible through freedesktop) that allows
you to specify default applications for GUI and defaults for CLI is much
preferred over multiple configuration locations. If such a "standard" was
to be implemented, where you could distinguish between CLI and GUI (and
change such configurations from CLI), then metashell will use such
standards, and ad hear to such configurations.
But this is a different issue, right?
> > > 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
> > 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
> > Or cat the file first, to determine the type, and then open with
> > 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.
I did include "open" there. And although I am sure the normal (unfamiliar
person) is still going to try the filename first, they may try adding open
the second go-around. Although, we are both coming from people who
understand how a shell works. Some people may not realize you even add
commands before filenames, or that commands exist, what about them? Is Ms
Joan going to be like, "Oh! Duh! I need a command first, in front of the
filename I wish to open. I bet "open" would be the command to use to OPEN
something. And I am sure the command syntax is simply, "open <filename>".
I doubt it, now would she come to that conclusion before, vi <filename>,
> > 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
> > we get past all of this "command-blank" completes this and
> > 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
> > making the shell a friendlier place, without taking the power out of the
> > users-hands, a hard balance to strike.
> > > > It would also be great to have a central mime-type -> action
> > > > 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
> > 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".
Yes, I misunderstood. As stated above, a central configuration location
would be ideal. As long as you can designate actions based on the
Ideally I would be able to specify with a --flag, request to
> interactively choose or have it automatically determined based on my
This makes perfect sense, although isn't the case at the moment, and again
is a problem outside of the scope of the project. While metashell would
benefit from this problem being solved, metashell is not here to solve this
problem. Maybe we should poll freedesktop for this solution? And then not
only can metashell benefit, but see, edit, gnome-open, xdg-open, o, or open
can all also benefit. That way, no matter what your preference, the problem
from this end, is solved.
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.
I run a terminal within X as well, but I don't open text files from the
command-line in gedit. That's the point of the menus, the mouse, and all
the other fancy stuff X provides. If I am working in a shell (even if it is
a window on my desktop, in my wm), I want to stay in a shell while doing so.
In addition, what if you are not currently in X?
> If we follow this logic, we can take out every application that preforms
> > same task, and give the users no choice, slap a (photo of a 'Super-Key')
> > 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.
You may agree with the philosophy, but somehow it seems you are closed
minded to the idea of a "new" shell alternative, that is striving to make
the CLI a friendlier place. A project no-one is even forcing you to use.
> > Here's where I definitely agree. Other systems have this, to some
> > It
> > > seems like the desktop-specific systems ought to manage mailcap,
> > 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
> > the entire system.
> Again, if my CLI is running inside my WM, I don't want my PDF file in
> a text console!
That is you, and with metashell you have that choice. With a central
configuration, you have that choice. Choices, choices, choices! When I
have a shell on my WM, I am working in the shell for a reason, and therefore
I want my PDF in a shell, period. (This is coming from someone who likes
the CLI far more then GUI applications though, so I may be a niche market.)
But I'll assume plenty of others like to keep the shell environment separate
from the GUI. If not, they still have a choice.
> > > -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
> > user-friendly command-line environment. That uses intuitive commands
> > lack there of) to complete tasks. While all at the same time allowing
> > well-versed *nix admins complete complex tasks without hesitating. I
> > 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
> > users.
> > If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to email
> > 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
Justin M. Wray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss