|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shell script article.|
Hello. I came to wikipedia to look for the history of shell scripts. I think they originated in UNIX? Unfortunately, there is no history here. I am sad now. :( Perhaps one of you who knows more, can add history stuff to this page. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
C shell scripts
I was unaware that people wrote scripts for C shells. Is it really true? --Yath 08:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- They do, but they shouldn't. --RobHutten 12:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Book for sale?
Wondering why one of the external links is to a book that is only for sale. Not in the spirit of Wikipedia if you ask me . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 March 2006
- Please see Wikipedia:External links for more information. There is no bias against commercial links. The question of adding or not adding a link should be based on relevance and value to the reader of Wikipedia or other downstream sites. -Harmil 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- No bookstore links. Besides, there is nothing special about this book distinguishing it from the slew of other books on the subject. The fact that it is only for sale diminishes its value to the reader of Wikipedia. Taking it out. 220.127.116.11 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Referencing an opinionized book?
If that book is as opinionized as the title says it is, it's more than likely not a very suitable source for wikipedia. Please remove it promptly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchnloved (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion about "rm -rf * /" is silly. 1) Much more likely this kind of screw-up would occur on command line than in a shell script. 2) Article seems to indicate that rm -rf */ is a reasonable thing to do. It's not. Anyone would know to enter "rm -rf dir_to_remove". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was a fairly recent discussion on one of the *BSD mailing lists asserting that it couldn't happen on "their" system, followed immediately by a comment that pointed out that the code checked only one case. The first instance of user-blunder that I recall being told about (1983) didn't use "/". TEDickey (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Should these scripts be cleaned up to improve portability/security/brevity according to common guidelines? For example:
- Quote to avoid common bugs even if the scripts change.
mktempwhere necessary to avoid filename collisions.
- Use the portable
- Avoid using temporary files if possible, because of the difficulty of handling corner cases properly.
This article is so ridiculously technical it's infuriating. It's definitely not for novices, who know nothing about shell scripts. Encyclopedia articles should be written so that they are clearly understood by everybody. This is like a science manual designed only for scientists. 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- hmm - your edit history indicates that you spend most of your time watching television. Should we find an educational program which gives content at the level you're looking for? TEDickey (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, a novice would have a hard time understanding the article. But I think it would be quite difficult to write the article for a novice. To understand about shell scripts, the novice almost has to buy a book or use a tutorial, typing commands into a computer. It seems difficult to convey shell scripting "in the abstract" in a way understandable to a novice. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)