[wplug] Linux Bat Files

[Matthew J. Hughes]

Did you ever get this worked out? I have a Shell scripting book you 
could borrow if you want. Or you could check and see if it is still in 
the O'Reilly open book. O'Reilly keeps a lot of there out of print books 
online and some pages/chapters of others are available. Let me know 
before next G.U.M. personnally I think you would be better off with perl 
than sh or bash, but not all would agree with me.

Michael H. Semcheski wrote:

>I think this question has been answered well by other posts in this
>thread, but I just wanted to wrap everything up:
>
>The first line of a script is #! followed by the interpreter or shell
>that will execute the following lines.  sh is the standard, but other
>shells have bolted on new syntax or options.  Other shells include csh,
>ksh, tcsh, ash, bash.  An interpreter you might want to look at is
>perl.  Its considered to be good form to use the absolute path to the
>executable, but you don't have to.  If its in your path, it will work. 
>(ie #!perl is good, but #!/usr/local/bin/perl is better.) 
>
>The path to sh is generally /bin/sh, but if you use other shells, they
>might be located in /usr/bin/.  Suppose you want to find the location of
>the perl interpreter on your system.  Run 'which perl' and it will
>return something like /usr/local/bin/perl.
>
>Once you've written your script and are ready to run it, if you do not
>give an absolute path or path relative to the current directory, the
>interpreter will look in the directories in $PATH.  It will not look in
>the current directory unless that directory is in $PATH.  Thats why you
>put a ./ in front of the command. 
>
>A file must be marked executable before you can run it.  Hence, chmod +x
>filename.
>
>Now a little conjecture:
>
>If you do not like sh, there are plenty of other options.  I haven't
>written many sh scripts since I learned perl.  But before me go hundreds
>of millions of lines of shell script were written to do fantastic
>things, so its fully capable, if dated.  If you can get around on the
>command line and don't have to do anything too fancy, sh will work just
>find (since you can run commands just like you were typing them into the
>command line.)
>
>Mike
>
>
>Mark A wrote:
>  
>
>>First of all I am a total noob to Linux just switched over about 2
>>days ago. there was a time in windows and dos that you could make a
>>simple bat to automate things, move files, rename files, so forth and
>>so on. Well I am trying to create a simple bat file in Linux and I
>>cant get it to work. I am working in a Shell only environment no
>>GUI. There was a previous post on this board about it I did what it
>>said and it didn't work. here is what I pretty much did
>>
>>Jed marktest.bat (typed into file) mkdir /var/www/docs/hobohound.org
>>(saved the file, exited jed editor)
>>
>>Back in shell mode typed: chmod +x marktest.bat
>>
>>I got an error "command not found". I have tried many different ways
>>of wording it and am getting no where.
>>
>>This is but a simple BAT file to make a DIR when finished I will
>>need this BAT file to make Hundreds of DIRs, but I cant even get the
>>basics to work.
>>
>>Any help with this would be great. Thank you all.
>>
>>Mark A. mamaral at brandinteractive.com
>><mailto:mamaral at brandinteractive.com>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________ wplug mailing list
>>wplug at wplug.org http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wplug mailing list
>wplug at wplug.org
>http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>
>  
>


-- 
<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/"
title="Get Thunderbird - Reclaim Your Inbox"><img
src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/thunderbird/reclaimyourinbox_small.png"
width="125" height="80" border="0" alt="Get Thunderbird"></a>