> Is it correct to say that a shell runs inside the terminal? Nope. We use the word "terminal" nowadays to refer to a piece of software that is a terminal emul

> Is it correct to say that a shell runs inside the terminal? Nope. We use the word "terminal" nowadays to refer to a piece of software that is a terminal emulator. But the thing being emulated is what used to be called a "dumb terminal", which was a piece of hardware that couldn't itself run user software. "Shell" is the odd man out among these terms; a shell is always a piece of software. A terminal isn't necessarily a text device. I remember graphics terminals by Tektronix and Apollo. I never saw a blit terminal, but those things existed too. On SystemV, the console was simply the privileged terminal. My memory is poor, but I seem to recall that (a) there could only be one console, which had to be connected to a specific port; (b) you could only become root if you were on the console. On some early computers, I believe the term "console" referred to the panel of lights and toggle-switches on the case of the processor. The switches could be used to control memory contents and processor state; so OG wizards were said to be able to e.g. "toggle in the bootloader from the console".