Uber simple question for ye folks

Eire007

in windows batch files, u open up textpad and load in commands like such

ping 192.168.0.4 >C:\1.txt

save the file as a .bat
open command prompt and type in proggyname.bat

hey presto

Now can someone please translate this to unix, I googled it but what I typed in didn't work. Unix% or somethin... please, ta

Eire007 (n00b @ unix, L337 @ life)

krinDar

machine%
machine% echo "ping -c 5 [url]www.google.com[/url] > google_ping" > prog.bat
machine% 
machine% chmod 755 prog.bat 
machine% ./prog.bat 
machine% ls -la google_ping
-rw-r--r--  1 user  user  484 Oct 22 10:14 google_ping
machine% 

SkepticOne

You can also go

sh filename

Where filename contains the commands.

Eire007

thanks, worked a charm, rep all round.

Dustpuppy

Don't use .bat in unix/linux. use the extention .sh, like myfile.sh. it's better because then you see that it is a shell script. and u need inside as the first line #!/bin/sh or u have to use sh myfile.sh to start it.

krinDar

dustpuppy wrote:

u need inside as the first line #!/bin/sh or u have to use sh myfile.sh to start it.

That is incorrect.

Dustpuppy

krinDar wrote:

machine%
machine% echo "ping -c 5 [url]www.google.com[/url] > google_ping" > prog.bat
machine% 
machine% chmod 755 prog.bat 
machine% ./prog.bat 
machine% ls -la google_ping
-rw-r--r--  1 user  user  484 Oct 22 10:14 google_ping
machine% 

And -rw-r--r-- also is wrong. After chmod 755 the rights will be -rwx-xr-x. And u need the line with the full path to your shell. If u don't think u need it. Try it on another unix then linux and u will lern something about shell programing.

test999

It's a good idea to put the shell that you want your scripte to be interpreted by at the first line of your file,i.e.
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
Not everyone uses your shell, i.e. bash, csh, bsh, sh. So, for your script to work everywhere, you must put the shell required at the top of the file.

chmod 755 will set the file permissions to -rwx r-x r-x
Basically
421
rwx
and you add them up.

It's bad practise to call these types of file foo.bat on unix.
They should be called foo.sh

HTH

krinDar

Dustpuppy wrote:

And -rw-r--r-- also is wrong. After chmod 755 the rights will be -rwx-xr-x.

Let me read this again. After I 'chmod' prog.bat, the permissions of the output
file, google_ping will be rwxr-xr-x ?
I must be missing something here, could you explain it to me ?

Dustpuppy wrote:

And u need the line with the full path to your shell. If u don't think u need it. Try it on another unix then linux and u will lern something about shell programing.

I am really curious, have you even tried to do this at all ?

If you are having trouble with it, perhaps you should post
up your problems. I am sure there is someone here who
would be able to help you.

krinDar

test999 wrote:

It's a good idea to put the shell that you want your scripte to be interpreted by at the first line of your file

I agree it is good practise, but it is not completey necessary as others
would have you believe. Leaving it out of the example above was perfectly
reasonable, as the command was simple and would run in (almost) any
shell, it would definately run in the shells most people would use.

It's bad practise to call these types of file foo.bat on unix.

I agree, it is bad practise. But it is not wrong, just bad practise.

test999

krinDar wrote:

I agree it is good practise, but it is not completey necessary as others would have you believe.

I work on a variety of unix platforms. My perspective is, why not simply put the shell on the first line, instead of waiting for it to possibly fail (usually obscurely) on another platform?
I consider following good practise to be a part of good coding standards.
It's the difference between okay coding and great coding (not that writting shell scripts is coding, but saying that will start a flame...)

krinDar wrote:

I agree, it is bad practise. But it is not wrong, just bad practise.

I don't see why you think it's necessary to make that part of your post? are you trying to make a point?
I didn't say it was wrong did I?

krinDar

test999 wrote:

I work on a variety of unix platforms. My perspective is, why not simply put the shell on the first line, instead of waiting for it to possibly fail (usually obscurely) on another platform?

I am discussing the validity of what I wrote, (i.e you can execute
commands that are in a file with invoking a shell at the start) rather
than practise. I am talking syntax, you are talking semantics. I am
talking about a specific example, you are talking in general. We are
both correct and have valid points.

In general it is perhaps better to invoke a shell, but for something as
simple as a single command it is pointless and wasteful.

I am sure that a huge thread could come out of what is good practise
and what is not. I am not interested in partaking in such a thread.

test999 wrote:

I don't see why you think it's necessary to make that part of your post? are you trying to make a point? I didn't say it was wrong did I?

I am just clarifying the distinction between what is bad practise and
what is wrong.

Dustpuppy

Two things i have for u.

krinDar wrote:

Let me read this again. After I 'chmod' prog.bat, the permissions of the output
file, google_ping will be rwxr-xr-x ?
I must be missing something here, could you explain it to me ?

1. man chmod

krinDar wrote:

I am really curious, have you even tried to do this at all ?

If you are having trouble with it, perhaps you should post
up your problems. I am sure there is someone here who
would be able to help you.

2. man sh

krinDar

Dustpuppy wrote:

1. man chmod

Ok - Just for you I will provide a nice little walk through.

First - I echo a command into a file called prog.bat

machine% echo "ping -c 5 www.google.com > google_ping" > prog.bat

At this point, the contents of prog.bat is:

ping -c 5 www.google.com > google_ping

All this does it ping google and wait for 5 echos. The output of the
command is redirected to a file called google_ping.

machine% chmod 755 prog.bat 
machine% ./prog.bat

I change the mode of the prog.bat file to make it executable,
and execute it. This will (as mentioned before) put the output
into the file google_ping.

Then, to prove that it creates output, I list the output file:

machine% ls -la google_ping
-rw-r--r--  1 user  user  484 Oct 22 10:14 google_ping

Now - I repeat (and rephrase) my question: If I change the mode
of the file prog.bat to 755, why would I expect a completely seperate
output file called google_ping to pick up the same mode ?

I do linux and unix since 12 years. Please don't tell me, what's right and what's wrong.

Again, I repeat my question: Have you tried what I suggested ?
I mean, all the commands, exactly as I ran them are there ready
to be run.

With your unwillingness to try the simpliest of things and making
obiviously incorrect statements I am seriously beginning to wonder
whether you are a troll.

test999

@KrinDar, You might want to change your redirect so it works, for error conditions...

echo "ping -c 5 www.google.com 2>&1 google_ping" > prog.bat

krinDar

test999 wrote:

@KrinDar, You might want to change your redirect so it works, for error conditions...

echo "ping -c 5 www.google.com 2>&1 google_ping" > prog.bat

The error redirection you are using is Bourne specific (Bourne type
shells include ksh,bash,zsh and sh), the minimum redirection
that was present would work in most shells. This is probably a
good reason to invoke a Bourne shell at that point.

Also, while we are analysing it, the '-c' argument is not in posix
ping and if you do not get an echo for any reason (firewalls, remote
host unavailible) the ping command will not return.

test999

krinDar wrote:

The error redirection you are using is Bourne specific (Bourne type shells include ksh,bash,zsh and sh), the minimum redirection
that was present would work in most shells. This is probably a
good reason to invoke a Bourne shell at that point.

So you are saying that without line zero being
#!/usr/blah/blah/bash
this script would't work as expected?

How is specifying which interpreter to use at the start of a script wasteful?

krinDar

test999 wrote:

So you are saying that without line zero being
#!/usr/blah/blah/bash
this script would't work as expected?

No. What I am saying is that it will not work in shells that are not
based on the original Bourne shell e.g csh, tcsh etc. It will work
if you are using anyone of the shells mentioned (zsh, bash, ksh, sh).
A potential way around that is to invoke a Bourne type shell to run
the command.

Even if you are going to invoke a Bourne shell everytime, it (the general
'it', not the specific 'it') is not guaranteed to work all the time on
all variants of UNIX without some forethought.

How is specifying which interpreter to use at the start of a script wasteful?

I don't believe that I said that specifying which interpreter to use
was wasteful. What I said was that it was not always necessary
to invoke a shell to run a command.

If you do invoke a shell at the start of your script you have a
situation where you have a shell, which forks a shell, which forks
a command.

Why bother with the extra shell in the middle.

test999

krinDar wrote:

I don't believe that I said that

I couldn't believe it either

And no, what you wrote wouldn't catch an error condition using the bash shell. It would work under bash if everything was perfect, which is rarely the case.

krinDar

test999 wrote:

And no, what you wrote wouldn't catch an error condition using the bash shell. It would work under bash if everything was perfect, which is rarely the case.

Indeed it wouldn't catch an error, it was never intended to. I would probably
never write it like that myself. But neither would I ever write a script with
just one command.