Talk:Shell (computing)/Archive 3

Diagrams
I agree with Aoidh's opinion that the lead section should show some shell, not a diagram. Naturally, I strongly oppose any usage of misleading File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg, but the other image – File:Linux kernel and gaming input-output latency.svg – is surprisingly useful, and I think it would be appropriate in "Overview" section, which actually needs to be expanded to discuss the kinds of feedback shells may provide. I would prefer to eventually replace it with some OS-agnostic image, but I couldn't find anything appropriate yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed, a diagram in the lead section isn't that useful. Went ahead and  File:Linux kernel and gaming input-output latency.svg as you've suggested –  please check it out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, user:czarkoff, can you specify "misleading"? Is this supposed to sound intelligent? Which part of the scheme is "misleading"? An OS-agnostic diagram, addressing both CLI and GUI shells would be fine. For picture, I think you mean screenshots, there are the specific subsections. User:ScotXW t@lk 12:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am pretty tired of your WP:IDONTHEAR. Please, see Talk:GNOME Shell for explanation that you have already seen and ignored. And no, screenshots are more appropriate then diagrams in lead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Windows Explorer is not a shell
Windoes Explorer cannot be considered a shell.

http://www.techterms.com/definition/shell http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/shell.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.64.230.211 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? From Windows Explorer we see: While “Windows Explorer” is a term most commonly used to describe the file management aspect of the operating system, the Explorer process also houses the operating system’s search functionality and File Type associations (based on filename extensions), and is responsible for displaying the desktop icons, the Start Menu, the Taskbar, and the Control Panel. Collectively, these features are known as the Windows shell. SunSw0rd (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Windows explorer is IMO file browser. But it could additionally be a window manager, compositor, etc. This additional functions would make it a graphical shell. User:ScotXW t@lk 11:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but explorer.exe is what also displays the taskbar, desktop icons etc. Thus, it is a shell, despite the fact it is some kind of a game of words. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that File Explorer (formerly Windows Explorer) is not a shell but  is; only the computer program that   implements is Windows Shell, not Explorer, Taskbar or Start screen, although it launches them all.


 * Microsoft's definition of shell might have been different from the common usage in the past. For example, see DOS Shell, which is not a shell, in spite of its name. But now that they have renamed their file manager File Explorer and introduced Windows PowerShell, maybe they are thinking the common definition is not a bad thing after all.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that "explorer.exe" is not Windows Explorer? At least the processes for shell and Windows Explorer instances in Windows XP were all "explorer.exe", or, if you used defaults, they all were run in one process). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple test: Close all explorer.exe in Task Manager and launch a new one. Instead of launching a Explorer window, it launches the Taskbar. That's because File Explorer is the name of a logical thing we have in our minds: A window with so-and-so toolbars and menu bars that manages files. These logical things, however, are implemented differently. Sometimes a single executable implements a single program, e.g. wordpad.exe = WordPad. Sometimes, many copies of an executable constitute a single program, e.g. a single Internet Explorer (8 or later) or Google Chrome window is maintained by multiple iexplore.exe or chrome.exe in memory. Sometimes, one executable implements many independent programs, e.g. svchost.exe that runs Event Log service and Windows Audio Service in one instance.


 * But we don't need all these. File Explorer is not a shell. Windows Shell is.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Codename Lisa – it's great to read a description from someone with a much better background in Windows internals. :)  So, svchost.exe and explorer.exe are like BusyBoxes on Windows? :)
 * DOS Shell and a much similar Norton Commander are good examples of what actually isn't a true shell, but the whole thing with PowerShell has been quite interesting since it was made available. Probably Microsoft is finally clear that not everything can be done by clicking around. :)
 * By the way, Hamilton C shell is also quite interesting, though I have no idea how widely used it is. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't do it right now, but the last time I used Windows XP, killing all  and launching it via Task Manager resulted in both Taskbar and Windows Explorer window. I remember it because I used to have some problems leading to   hanging, so I had to perform this manipulation several times a day. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With the term "DOS Shell" the people probably don't refer to the program DOS Shell, but its a term for CLI-based shell. This is expert-language for people who don't know anything else but Microsoft products. User:ScotXW t@lk 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those who write "DOS Shell" with capital S certainly do mean the file manager. Others do not use the word "shell" at all because DOS was too simple to ever make its user feel there is a kernel and a shell. But users did say "DosKey" and "Command.com" (or "the prompt"). Codename Lisa (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to follow with respect to graphical shells
For me, this article is really hard to follow. It's not clear at all to me what the essential features of a graphical shell are from this article. In particular, I don't know how I would be able to distinguish a graphical shell from a GUI, as they both seem to fill the same function.

Even desktop environment doesn't seem to be clearly distinguished from a graphical shell--I'm guessing the fundamental distinction here is whether or not the desktop metaphor is invoked. Since it's a metaphor, it's boundaries are fuzzy anyway, and I'm not sure it's obvious when this metaphor is being appealed to, as it may be appealed to indirectly or obliquely.

As a third point of reference, how is a graphical shell different from a WIMP interface? I'm thinking that's just a particular form of a GUI, but I really wish this article was better about clear definitions.

The article topic is pretty general, so it is frustrating to see descriptions that appeal to the typical nature of a CLI shell as being reflective of the full generality. Perhaps this article would benefit from a more "motivated" description of the history of the term "shell". That might explain why some things are considered shells, even beyond the scope of the original CLI shells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.163.191 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

cvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.11.159.166 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Shell" does NOT have consistent meaning
"Shell" does not have consistent meaning across platforms therefore this article should be made much smaller. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * According to this article a "Shell" means either a command-line interface, a text-based user interface, or a graphical user interface. What a shell REALLY means is just the software wrapper around the operating system that you can initially interact with when booting up. So REDUCE THIS ARTICLE! Keep it simple, stupid. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)