[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-02-13 18:47, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> To be fair, Linux, BSD, UNix, illumos, OS X, etc, would seem to all
>> actually be Unix, and what you are referring to is bash, which have a
>> better support for the command line than does OpenVMS.
>
> Um, also ksh, sh, tsh, csh, zsh, etc.

Eh? Have you actually used sh or csh? They do not have any command line 
editing at all. Linux sh is actually bash under disguise. It is not sh. 
NetBSD did extend csh with some limited line editing, but it's not 
something that would impress anyone... Last I looked, ksh was equally 
unimpressive. With tsh I assume you means tcsh, which along with zsh, is 
pretty much on par with bash, yes.

> Also the ability to write your own shells, using documented interfaces.

Well, since a shell is a normal program without any special properties, 
it's just the normal Unix API, but yes. Your point is well taken, that 
under VMS, a CLI is special, and apparently not well documented.
That said, line editing in VMS is not done by the CLI, but the terminal 
driver.
You can go the Unix route, as demonstrated by bash under VMS...

> There's also that Linux, BSD, Unix, illumos and OS X have seen
> functional releases and significant enhancements, but that's splitting
> hairs.

No. Those are good points. VMS have been lacking from that for a number 
of years...

> There's also the ability to use UTF-8 support at the command prompt on
> OS X and various other platforms, too.

Yes. Not that it makes much difference for line editing, but anyway...

>> Unix (by any of these names) do in fact not have better support, but
>> worse. The system functionality for reading and editing from a
>> terminal  is way more primitivt that what VMS have.
>
> Though "better" here clearly means "worse", at least in terms of editing
> command lines.

If you are running the right shell, yes. Otherwise not.

>> It is bash (and a library called readline), which offers they very
>> nice  experience.
>
> I don't care if the experience involves the existing terminal driver, a
> rewritten terminal driver, an old CLI or a wholly new CLI now using
> documented and supported interfaces, or if this is only available by
> limited production runs of artisan-crafted organic bits, sourced
> exclusively from sustainably-harvested bit-forests by fair-bit-trade
> certified bit-miners, and carved only using the finest in antique wooden
> bit-tools by tenth-generation bit-wizards — so long as I can edit a
> damned command.

Fair enough. But at the same time, knowing where to put the blame, as 
well as where you might want to fix things, is an important first step 
if you want to make things better.

Replacing the whole process scheduling code, for example, would not make 
line editing one bit better. Barking about DCL, replacing or rewriting 
it, or whatnot, will not make a difference either, as all the "magic" is 
happening in the terminal driver.

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol