> What term should I use to refer to those conventions?
POSIX.
But note that using pure POSIX limits you because you don't get advantage of easy-to-use composability using pipes & substitution. It's a free world, of course.
Good answer to an excellent question. But I do not agree.
POSIX is the whole of a lot of utilities. Most of these utilities I never use, and there is a lot of utilities not part of POSIX that I would consider part of the "command line experience" (editor, tmux, some home grown tools, a REPL or debugger, ...), ssh, ...
Sometimes I refer to shell programs, or shell environments. This adapts to all that I actually use quite flexibly. Both to the tools, and with a special attention to the glue: the POSIX, Ba-, Da-, Z sh.
Interchageably, I also happen to use TTY (pronounced as Tee Tee Why ;) ), terminal, and Console .
I am not particularly happy with any of these, and also do not have a strong preference. I would like to be more consistent in my wording, so opiniated replies are most welcome :)
POSIX is the whole of a lot of utilities. Most of these utilities I never use, and there is a lot of utilities not part of POSIX that I would consider part of the "command line experience" (editor, tmux, some home grown tools, a REPL or debugger, ...), ssh, ...
Sometimes I refer to shell programs, or shell environments. This adapts to all that I actually use quite flexibly. Both to the tools, and with a special attention to the glue: the POSIX, Ba-, Da-, Z sh.
Interchageably, I also happen to use TTY (pronounced as Tee Tee Why ;) ), terminal, and Console .
I am not particularly happy with any of these, and also do not have a strong preference. I would like to be more consistent in my wording, so opiniated replies are most welcome :)