UNIX as a Hobbie
james
I myself do not work in a UNIX related field, nor was I a computer
science
major (let alone past college).Closest I get to a UNIX box is the Netra that
runs our 5ESS vcdx switch. So my knowledge of UNIX is very limited compared
to the most of you who make posts here. I've been involved in UNIX for about
9 months now as a hobbiest(during that period I ran S.u.S.E, Redhat, Debian
Linux, FreeBSD, Linux and NetBSD for Sparc, Bell-labs Plan 9, Inferno,
Solaris 8 and SCO). I used to build Radio Control cars as a hobby. I
discovered that installing, setting up and running UNIX based system is a
lot more fun! Plus is cheap. (my current project is NIS / NFS)
With my new found hobby, I decided to make a career out of it. Having no
time to go back to college I enrolled into a trade school that specialized
in UNIX Administration training.(also being a hobbiest open up special doors
in the school, like being part of the AutoSys setup) Since I've been in
training I ran across UNIX administrators. Most Admins That I delt with find
it odd that I'm into UNIX as a hobby first and that I run it at home for
everyday use. I was told that a SPARCstation as no use at home. I find that
to be totally wrong. I'm running a SPARCstation 20 w/ Solaris 8 as a
deskstop, along with a SCO box and a Win2K box. The Solaris box get more use
time than any other box. The person that got me into UNIX as a hobby runs 3
SGI indigos2 and a o2 w/ IRIX.
Well there was no real point to this post except 2 things:
1) I like to give a BIG THANKS to those who help me by replying to my
posts!!
2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a career out
of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
Once again thanks
James
Tony Lawrence
> 2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a career out
> of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
As most people spend most of their waking hours working,
shouldn't your work be something you enjoy?
--
Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
Bill Vermillion
>2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a
>career out of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
Worked for me. As to pointers? I don't know. I just happened.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Crossfire
[snip]
] 2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a career out
] of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
Been there, done that. Bought the t-shirt, ate the burger, listened to the
original cast album...
My one piece of advice is to not be intimidated by over-educated
self-proclaimed "gurus." Experience is as good as (and in some cases even
preferable to) formal education when it comes to system administration.
--
Jon Reid -- jon <at> apeiros <dot> com
Bill Vermillion
Crossfire <jonLU...@MEATapeiros.com> wrote:
>[snip]
I've yet to meet a 'self-proclaimed "guru"' who really was a guru,
with one or two noteable exceptions and one is heading up a math
department at a major University. Damn he's good.
Crossfire
] I've yet to meet a 'self-proclaimed "guru"' who really was a guru,
] with one or two noteable exceptions and one is heading up a math
] department at a major University. Damn he's good.
Yup. Sometimes the exceptions just prove the rule (or however it goes).
I know of two people I'd consider to have "guru" status, and neither of
them claim it. In fact, one of them uses the tagline, "Much of the little
I know is empirical," an amusing double entendre as he is a theoretical
physicist in his spare time.
Tony Lawrence
Absolutely- the most seriously brain dead, dumb as a stump,
completely unbelievable moron I ever had the displeasure to work
with had at least one Phd, and I think a few other degrees,
several patents to his name, and had been MIS director for some
very impressive corporate names. Yet, while trying to help him
track down a problem on the phone, we had gone through multiple
incantations of me saying "see-dee-SPACE-slash-you-ess-are-slash"
thingies. After the 5th or sixth I left out the SPACE, and he
obediently didn't type it, of course got an error, and chastised
me for not giving proper directions. As we worked further on the
problem, I started to suspect that SOMEBODY (and he was
definitely the somebody I suspected) had modified a certain
configuration file, so I asked him to look at the date stamp, and
sure enough, it had been modified since I had created it. I had
him look inside, and sure enough, SOMEBODY had been in there
changing things. I led him (painfully) through changing things
back, and then we got into a ridiculous argument about how this
had happened. The date stamps and the "last" records made it
pretty obvious what had happened, SOMEBODY had logged in as root
after I left and mucked with that file. As he and I and the
owner were supposedly the only people with the root password, and
I obviously wasn't there, I kind of felt that narrowed things
down a bit, but this idiot couldn't see that at all.
I'm just a high school dropout, so I guess I had no business
trying to use logic against this overeducated boob.
- bill -
Is it Jeff that runs the "Education through Distruction" university ?
Enroll there, learn a lot.
--
-bill-
Technical Service Systems - bi...@TechServSys.com
J. L. Schilling
: Absolutely- the most seriously brain dead, dumb as a stump,
: completely unbelievable moron I ever had the displeasure to work
: with had at least one Phd, and I think a few other degrees,
: several patents to his name, and had been MIS director for some
: very impressive corporate names. Yet, while trying to help him
: track down a problem on the phone, we had gone through multiple
: incantations of me saying "see-dee-SPACE-slash-you-ess-are-slash"
: thingies. After the 5th or sixth I left out the SPACE, and he
: obediently didn't type it, of course got an error, and chastised
: me for not giving proper directions. [...]
Didn't know this person or this circumstance, obviously, but in
general the conclusion I draw from stories like this is how
unfriendly the UNIX command line interface is. Commands are cryptic
("cd" sounds like something that plays music); spellings leave out
letters (what's wrong with "/user"? "copy"?); pathnames don't
differentiate between device names, directory names, and file names;
case is sensitive; recalling and editing previous commands is hard or
impossible for beginners; and so on.
If you are using a UNIX system on a regular basis, of course, you
quickly get used to, and past, all this. But for the occasional user,
especially one under the stress of something having gone wrong,
such pecularities only serve to raise the blood pressure, and it
becomes easy to make what you label "dumb as a stump" mistakes,
Ph.D.'s or not.
And yes, other command line interfaces (MS-DOS, DEC VMS, IBM VM/CMS)
suffer from similar problems, although none is quite as brutal to
beginners as UNIX.
--
Jonathan Schilling SCO, Inc. j...@sco.com
Bill Vermillion
>Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com) wrote:
>: Absolutely- the most seriously brain dead, dumb as a stump,
>: completely unbelievable moron I ever had the displeasure to work
>: with had at least one Phd, and I think a few other degrees,
>: several patents to his name, and had been MIS director for some
>: very impressive corporate names. Yet, while trying to help him
>: track down a problem on the phone, we had gone through multiple
>: incantations of me saying "see-dee-SPACE-slash-you-ess-are-slash"
>: thingies. After the 5th or sixth I left out the SPACE, and he
>: obediently didn't type it, of course got an error, and chastised
>: me for not giving proper directions. [...]
I had similar experiences. For some it seems the more schooled
they are [as opposed to really being educated] the more they are
set in their way and don't stop to think things through. Lack of
an open-mind would be a good description.
>Didn't know this person or this circumstance, obviously, but in
>general the conclusion I draw from stories like this is how
>unfriendly the UNIX command line interface is. Commands are cryptic
>("cd" sounds like something that plays music); spellings leave out
>letters (what's wrong with "/user"? "copy"?); pathnames don't
>differentiate between device names, directory names, and file names;
>case is sensitive; recalling and editing previous commands is hard or
>impossible for beginners; and so on.
That crytic command line argument is often used. Only now does
'cd' sound like a music playing device. The closest you'd come in
the early days of UNIX would be 'certificate of deposit'.
The 'cryptic' comments are most used by people who have come to
Unix from an MS environment. Can't change the Unix commands since
they were their first, so maybe MS should be faulted for not
using commands already in use.
'ls' does seem like a logical abbreviation for 'list'. However
if you'd never been near a computer before 'dir' for 'directory'
still would be obscure. Since we are talking text entry, most
humans are used to printed media, so wouldn't 'ind' or 'index'
make more sense to find out the names of files? In that context
'dir' is cryptic.
Understanding that commands are abbreviated is the clue.
However cp path/filea path/fileb - is certainly much more
intuitive than pip driveletter:filenameb driveletter:filenamea
where the line syntax is more related to mathematics where the
value is on left side and copied into the varialbe on the right.
In the pip command the second file on the command line is copied to
the first file on the command line. And what is PIP.
Peripheral Interchange Program. Boy - talk about non-intuitive.
One of the CP/M commands which was about the only popular small
system OS [actually file-handler is a better description than
operating system].
In many instances things only look cryptic when viewed toward the
past from the future. In the past today's cryptic items could
very well be considered logical.
A standard transmission in an automobile would be 'cryptic' for
most of today's drivers. Just as a stick-shift looked cryptic
for those used to column shifts, and the pedals for the gears
would look cryptic to stick-shift drivers.
>If you are using a UNIX system on a regular basis, of course, you
>quickly get used to, and past, all this. But for the occasional user,
>especially one under the stress of something having gone wrong,
>such pecularities only serve to raise the blood pressure, and it
>becomes easy to make what you label "dumb as a stump" mistakes,
>Ph.D.'s or not.
It's the exposure to other computer systems that causes this.
The learning curve on a first computer seems often forgotten and
it's layout is logical to that user - then when they change systems
they are lost because familiar items - which in their previous
experience were totally uknonw items - don't work the same way.
>And yes, other command line interfaces (MS-DOS, DEC VMS, IBM VM/CMS)
>suffer from similar problems, although none is quite as brutal to
>beginners as UNIX.
One of the things that stumps many Unix users is that spaces
are significants. MS'es way of not needing spaces - because there
can only be one argument per command - makes for poor understanding
and habits which cause problems in Unix. MS's design is poor by my
view. And the problem with any poor design which becomes a
de-facto standard is that you are often forced to doing things
in the worst possible manner.
Bill
Crossfire
] Crossfire wrote:
] >
] > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:02:46 -0500, james <brojo...@home.com> wrote:
] >
] > [snip]
] >
] > ] 2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a
] > ] career out
] > ] of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
] >
] > Been there, done that. Bought the t-shirt, ate the burger, listened to the
] > original cast album...
] >
] > My one piece of advice is to not be intimidated by over-educated
] > self-proclaimed "gurus." Experience is as good as (and in some cases even
] > preferable to) formal education when it comes to system administration.
]
]
] Absolutely- the most seriously brain dead, dumb as a stump,
] completely unbelievable moron I ever had the displeasure to work
] with had at least one Phd, and I think a few other degrees,
] several patents to his name, and had been MIS director for some
] very impressive corporate names. Yet, while trying to help him
] track down a problem on the phone, we had gone through multiple
] incantations of me saying "see-dee-SPACE-slash-you-ess-are-slash"
] thingies. After the 5th or sixth I left out the SPACE, and he
] obediently didn't type it, of course got an error, and chastised
] me for not giving proper directions. As we worked further on the
*twitch*
My ultimate story along these lines is similar...after telling a client
to type "cd /u" to check on a database problem, that person kept
telling me "I'm getting the error 'cd /u: command not found'."
It took me literally a half an hour to discover that when I said,
"see-dee-space-slash-u" the client was typing "cdspaceslashu."
*twitch*
[snip to end]
J. L. Schilling
: The 'cryptic' comments are most used by people who have come to
: Unix from an MS environment.
The younger generation, perhaps, but others with a commercial background
came from IBM JCL (the worst ever) to things like VM/CMS (much better) then
to DEC VMS (about as good as these things get) then to UNIX (back to the
land of obscuro).
Another major point about UNIX being rough on beginners is that there is
no on-line help. UNIX man pages are terse reference documents that to
this day only tell me what I'm looking for about 70% of the time; their
tutorial value is generally zilch. (I broke form with this tradition
in the first paragraph of the CC man page on UnixWare 7, hope it helped
some struggling neophyte out there somewhere.) Not to mention that no one
will think to use a command named "man" in the first place. Other systems
generally have "help" commands that take kinder and gentler approaches.
Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having trouble
using UNIX.
Bill Campbell
>Bill Vermillion (bi...@wjv.com) wrote:
>
>: The 'cryptic' comments are most used by people who have come to
>: Unix from an MS environment.
>
>The younger generation, perhaps, but others with a commercial background
>came from IBM JCL (the worst ever) to things like VM/CMS (much better) then
>to DEC VMS (about as good as these things get) then to UNIX (back to the
>land of obscuro).
I cut my teeth on Burroughs MCP, and it spoiled me since it made JCL
look ridiculous. As far as I could tell JCL was great job security
for IBM systems programmers (much like Windows viruses support a major
industry today).
...
>Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having trouble
>using UNIX.
``Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity'' --
Dennis Ritchie
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
smart terminals. -- o...@burnout.demon.co.uk (obscurity)
Bill Vermillion
>Bill Vermillion (bi...@wjv.com) wrote:
>: The 'cryptic' comments are most used by people who have come to
>: Unix from an MS environment.
>The younger generation, perhaps, but others with a commercial
>background came from IBM JCL (the worst ever) to things like VM/CMS
>(much better) then to DEC VMS (about as good as these things get)
>then to UNIX (back to the land of obscuro).
I've done no mainframe work. Just have seen references over the
years.
>Another major point about UNIX being rough on beginners is that
>there is no on-line help.
Well few things I used in the past had on line help. Wasn't any in
the DOS 2.0 - my first touch with MS OSes. The structure surely
looked like Unix at first. Boy what a let down. Left it after 6
months and went to *ix and never went back - except making the MS
machines work in an *ix environment.
So what else had on line help on line in the past.
>UNIX man pages are terse reference documents that to this day only
>tell me what I'm looking for about 70% of the time;
And how do you know what you are looking for. As a matter of fact
how do you know what you are looking for in any OS with which you
are not familiar.
At least most Unix systems now have apropos which can usually
give a decent hint.
What I really like about the old Unix manuals was their
permutted index. [Hm. Just looked and in my current FreeBSD - my
mail/new/firewall - there is no ptx man page anymore. Binary is
there. Wonder when that went away. away]. A lot of people really
hated those man pages but having the the index in sentence context
was really nice - once you got used to it.
For those of newer uses who have no clue as to what a permutted
index is, and have never heard of ptx, I'll just run the previous
paragraph through it to give you an idea. The index word is the
first word after the blank colum in the center, and the sentence in
which it occurs is there, with wrap occuring before or after the
word. [Edited to a reasoble reading example].
/the the index in sentence context was really nice - once you/
/current FreeBSD - my mail/new/ firewall - there is no ptx man/
/manuals was their permutted index. [Hm. Just looked and in my/
/and in my current FreeBSD - my mail/new/firewall - there is no/
//new/firewall - there is no ptx man page anymore. Binary is there./
/the old Unix manuals was their permutted index. [Hm. Just looked/
/mail/new/firewall - there is no ptx man page anymore. Binary is/
As I recall in the printed manaul the key word also typically had
another blank or a different type face. Now if all of today's
manual on CD had fully searchable text, we could do the same thing,
but some seem to exist only in PDF formats, which is could be
best descrbed as electric paper. What we need to be able to do is
easily pull out pieces/parts from within the file. Text searches
on raw PDF files are less productive than 'strings' on a binary.
>their utorial value is generally zilch.
Unix man pages were never meant to be tutorials - but man pages.
However the first Unix manual SETS were tutorial in nature. Second
volume of the Version 7 man pages was all tutorial. I have 1983
reprints with Bell logo on the cover. The K&R C book is there.
vi tutorial, adb tutorial, etc. The BSD manuals had one set that
was virtually all tutorial. So lack of tutorial depends somewhat
on the vendor. As Unix spread more and more manuals just sat and
were never opened - a serious waste of trees. The full price
on a V.3 set was about $400 when I last bought any full manual
> (I broke form with this tradition in the first paragraph of the CC
>man page on UnixWare 7, hope it helped some struggling neophyte out
>there somewhere.)
You are to be congratulated on that.
>Not to mention that no one will think to use a command named "man"
>in the first place.
Common complaint. Why can't we get all vendors be convinced to be
sure apropos is there. When I can't recall the man command,
I can usually find it from there, if it exists. That's usually my
first line of attack when I don't know the man page I'm hunting
for.
[Aside - on the above ptx command there is no man, apropos, etc..
I just recalled it was ptx and ran locate [indexes all the files on
the system weekly. Got a bit big the first time I ran it and
forgot to exclued the usenet news hierarchy here :-)] More of
historical interest now that we do have at least man pages
searchable on content.
>Other systems generally have "help" commands that take kinder and
>gentler approaches.
But you still have to know what command you want help on :-(
>Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having
>trouble using UNIX.
It's just harder to learn now - there is so much more of it.
The first Xenix system I used came on 3 8" floppies. That means
the total system took up the same amount of space as just the
kernel does here. It really does help to learn the system as it
grows, and someone walking into it cold the first time surely has a
lot more to learn than I first did.
Another aside. Years ago - before Unix adopted me - I was an audio
engineer. I also taught some. Students first being hit with a
12 foot wide console with 40 input channel and a 32 track tape
recorder were a bit overwhelmed. I don't blame them. I kidded
them saying I had it easy. I learned on mono and only had to add a
channel every year or so.
Since educational instutions are the tax-deductible garbage dumps
for media companies, the first audio console I ever touched was
a 1938 Western Electric - with about 6 pots. Still in use when I
learned on it, many years after it original design life expired,
still in use past a couple of major global conflicts, and long past
the time any replacement parts were available. But boy was it simple
to learn. So was early Unix.
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:52:00AM +0000, J. L. Schilling wrote:
>>Bill Vermillion (bi...@wjv.com) wrote:
>>
>>: The 'cryptic' comments are most used by people who have come to
>>: Unix from an MS environment.
>>
>>The younger generation, perhaps, but others with a commercial background
>>came from IBM JCL (the worst ever) to things like VM/CMS (much better) then
>>to DEC VMS (about as good as these things get) then to UNIX (back to the
>>land of obscuro).
>
>I cut my teeth on Burroughs MCP, and it spoiled me since it made JCL
>look ridiculous. As far as I could tell JCL was great job security
>for IBM systems programmers (much like Windows viruses support a major
>industry today).
>
>...
>>Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having trouble
>>using UNIX.
>``Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity'' --
> Dennis Ritchie
And there's another quote - for which I've never seen attribution
which goes like this:
"Unix IS user friendly. It's just particular about who it's
friends are."
j...@benburb.demon.co.uk
> Didn't know this person or this circumstance, obviously, but in
> general the conclusion I draw from stories like this is how
> unfriendly the UNIX command line interface is. Commands are cryptic
I am seeing this at first hand currently, where my 14 year old son has
been dragged screaming by me from Windoze unto a Caldera box. He
finds it very frustrating.
For children and young people what we need is more sites like TL's,
but perhaps were material is presented in a cartoon-format. It is
impossible to exaggerate how simple the presentation needs to be.
They need to be encouraged to read long before they try man etc.
Hmmm idea for a book here: Ladybird Guide to Linux ! (One of the best
books I ever read on type setting was the Ladybird - pitched at 6
yo's. Perhaps these are not availabe in the US.)
--
joe mc cool
========================================================================
Tangent Computer Research BT71 7LN (www.tangent-research.com)
voice:(44)2837-548074fax:(44)-870-0520185
Jeff Liebermann
>And yes, other command line interfaces (MS-DOS, DEC VMS, IBM VM/CMS)
>suffer from similar problems, although none is quite as brutal to
>beginners as UNIX.
Walking someone through some proceedure using ANY of the command line
based operating systems is a dream compared to the nightmare of trying to
do the same think on an icon infested, customizeable graphics GUI screen.
I have to do this on a daily basis and find that even the most
intelligent users have difficulties simply describing what's on their
screen, and following graphic like instructions.
Which would you prefer:
1. c:\> copy a:filename c:\junk\
2. My Computer -> A:
My Computer -> C: -> Junk
Right click the "filename" icon and drag it to the "Junk" window.
Select "Copy" with left button.
Close both windows by left clicking [X].
I also have a moderately large collection of users with short attention
spans, general cluelessness, PHD's, and other learning impediments. I
also have my frustrations and expectations. Since they all pay me to do
the dirty work and answer simple questions, I rationalize that it's more
profitable to be their banker than their educator.
I rather like the idea of Unix as a hobby. Some of the things I've done
with Unix in the past offer very little hope of commercial exploitation
and are sometimes rather comical. Does the world really need a digital
clock in Roman Numerals? I guess that's my idea of a hobby.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831-421-6491 pager 831-429-1240 fax
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl/sco/ SCO stuff
Tony Lawrence
> Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having trouble
> using UNIX.
I wasn't. I was calling him dumb for not recognizing the pattern
"cd is followed by space" after half a dozen examples and for not
understanding that if the date stamp on a file says it has been
changed at X time, and we know it was correct at X minus Y time,
and only two people have logged in since X minus Y, ONE of those
two people changed the file.
The guy was a stump with a Phd.
Nor is that unusual. Phd's seem to come in two classes:
wonderful, brilliant people whose minds are simply magnetic, and
plodding morons who apparently have good memory skills but
nothing else.
As to Unix being cryptic, yeah, it's cryptic in the same way
logical thinking and the scientific method are cryptic. It would
be cryptic to the store clerk who cheerfully gives you eighteen
dollars worth of change from a ten dollar payment because his
cash register told him to. It would be cryptic to the same clerk
who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
Tony Lawrence
>
> On 14 Jan 2001 16:03:13 GMT, j...@sco.com (J. L. Schilling) wrote:
>
> >And yes, other command line interfaces (MS-DOS, DEC VMS, IBM VM/CMS)
> >suffer from similar problems, although none is quite as brutal to
> >beginners as UNIX.
>
> Walking someone through some proceedure using ANY of the command line
> based operating systems is a dream compared to the nightmare of trying to
> do the same think on an icon infested, customizeable graphics GUI screen.
> I have to do this on a daily basis and find that even the most
> intelligent users have difficulties simply describing what's on their
> screen, and following graphic like instructions.
>
> Which would you prefer:
>
> 1. c:\> copy a:filename c:\junk\
>
> 2. My Computer -> A:
> My Computer -> C: -> Junk
> Right click the "filename" icon and drag it to the "Junk" window.
> Select "Copy" with left button.
> Close both windows by left clicking [X].
Naw, it's much worse than that. It's "Click on the little thingy
that looks like.. uhhh... well, it's three over from the thingy
that looks like wings. Yeah, that's it-click on that. Now half
way down the page, kinda to the left, there's a button that
says.."
Give me "see dee space slash" any day.
Except that NOW, because of the Microsoft Morons, they all think
that "/" is a BACK SLASH, a stupidity that leaves me breathing
deeply and clenching my teeth.
Fulko Hew
> Except that NOW, because of the Microsoft Morons, they all think
> that "/" is a BACK SLASH, a stupidity that leaves me breathing
> deeply and clenching my teeth.
Call me annal (or probably everyone else is already), whenever I hear
an MM talk about slashes I correct them by saying:
"You mean a backslash don't you?"
I _refuse_ to let these people re-write history, English, and computing!!!!
(I'll take my Valium now to calm down.)
Fulko
Richard Seeder
>
<snip>
> As to Unix being cryptic, yeah, it's cryptic in the same way
> logical thinking and the scientific method are cryptic. It would
> be cryptic to the store clerk who cheerfully gives you eighteen
> dollars worth of change from a ten dollar payment because his
> cash register told him to. It would be cryptic to the same clerk
> who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
> cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
>
>
Umm, why *are* you handing him an extra fifteen cents?
--
Richard Seeder
aa...@att.net
Bill Vermillion
>> Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having
>> trouble using UNIX.
>I wasn't. I was calling him dumb for not recognizing the pattern
>"cd is followed by space" after half a dozen examples
If he did much command line work in MS that might be acceptable
behaviour - having to unlearn MS.
> and for not
>understanding that if the date stamp on a file says it has been
>changed at X time, and we know it was correct at X minus Y time,
>and only two people have logged in since X minus Y, ONE of those
>two people changed the file.
Slighty OT - and I really dislike the way MS retains the time stamp
when copying files.
>The guy was a stump with a Phd.
>Nor is that unusual. Phd's seem to come in two classes:
>wonderful, brilliant people whose minds are simply magnetic, and
>plodding morons who apparently have good memory skills but
>nothing else.
Yup. There are also perceptions made by other based on the letters
you attach to your name along with the postion held. At one place
I did some outside work for there was one guy - whom a great many
didn't think he was in their class because he was just 'the coach'.
For some reason that job isn't held in high regard in a lot of
places. He didn't care what others thought. And they never knew
that he was far more educated than many there. Finished pre-med
and didn't have the money to go to medical school. Wound up with a
degree in aeronautical engineering. But found that he loved to
coach more than anything else in the world - so that what he does.
>As to Unix being cryptic, yeah, it's cryptic in the same way
>logical thinking and the scientific method are cryptic. It would
>be cryptic to the store clerk who cheerfully gives you eighteen
>dollars worth of change from a ten dollar payment because his
>cash register told him to. It would be cryptic to the same clerk
>who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
>cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
Or like the time time when a store clerk handed me change, and it
was wrong, as he'd given me too much. I just stuck out my hand,
and he looked at it, and took some more money out of the cash
drawer and gave me even more. In the end we got it right.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2001 16:03:13 GMT, j...@sco.com (J. L. Schilling) wrote:
>>And yes, other command line interfaces (MS-DOS, DEC VMS, IBM
>>VM/CMS) suffer from similar problems, although none is quite as
>>brutal to beginners as UNIX.
>Walking someone through some proceedure using ANY of the command
>line based operating systems is a dream compared to the nightmare
>of trying to do the same think on an icon infested, customizeable
>graphics GUI screen. I have to do this on a daily basis and find
>that even the most intelligent users have difficulties simply
>describing what's on their screen, and following graphic like
>instructions.
>Which would you prefer:
>1. c:\> copy a:filename c:\junk\
>2. My Computer -> A:
> My Computer -> C: -> Junk
> Right click the "filename" icon and drag it to the "Junk" window.
> Select "Copy" with left button.
> Close both windows by left clicking [X].
You know the one I prefer. However 1). will require you to think
about what you are doing, and have a little understanding. 2). Is
the 'anyone can do this' approach, making users think they can't
do something that is quicker and/or smarter.
You still see 'news personalities' joking about how they can't set
the time on their VCR's - so how many people don't even attempt it
since it supposed to be 'so hard'. Computers are supposed to be
even harder. If myth says something is hard, or that Unix is
cryptic, then fewer will try.
If all you had to do to go somewhere in a car was sit down and
mouse click on a destination soon the ability judge distance, speed
direction, etc., would become a skill relegate to only the 'gurus'
that knew how to shift gears, turn steering wheels, press the gas
would be able to do. That would be seen by the average person as
hard to do and cryptic.
>Does the world really need a digital
>clock in Roman Numerals? I guess that's my idea of a hobby.
Well at least it would be more econmical to manufacture - if you
didn't make it last long - as the current year is MMI.
Take far fewer display positions than MCMXXXVIII (1938) for
example, or MCMLXXXVIII. I learned to read those as a kid
as I was a movie buff and that was the only way to know what year
the movie was made - by the copyright date.
Terry Paterson
news:3A62E0C9...@aplawrence.com...
> "J. L. Schilling" wrote:
>
> > Bottom line is still that I'll never call anyone dumb for having trouble
> > using UNIX.
>
>
> I wasn't. I was calling him dumb for not recognizing the pattern
> "cd is followed by space" after half a dozen examples and for not
> understanding that if the date stamp on a file says it has been
> changed at X time, and we know it was correct at X minus Y time,
> and only two people have logged in since X minus Y, ONE of those
> two people changed the file.
>
> The guy was a stump with a Phd.
>
> Nor is that unusual. Phd's seem to come in two classes:
> wonderful, brilliant people whose minds are simply magnetic, and
> plodding morons who apparently have good memory skills but
> nothing else.
I work for a small Software house here in Edinburgh, Scotland and have seen
a fair few employees come and go in my time here - some with Masters Degrees
in Computing, Engineering, and Mathematics, and others who have just been
self taught like myself.
Of all the people we have had the Drop outs, and self taught people have
always made better programmers / sys. admins than the "Well Educated"
people -- who just can't seem to deal with Trouble shooting, and the
problems that occur from day to day...
(Just my opinion of course !)
T
J. L. Schilling
: In article <93thjg$rjj$1...@hobbes.sco.com>, J. L. Schilling <j...@sco.com> wrote:
: >Another major point about UNIX being rough on beginners is that
: >there is no on-line help.
: [...] So what else had on line help on line in the past.
Attached are two screens of output from "help copy" on VMS 5.5.
The first is the top-level screen, the second after asking for examples.
All of the necessary reference information detail can be found at
lower levels of the help output, so it achieves both reference and
tutorial goals. VMS help typically looks like this, and I claim
it's more useful than UNIX man pages.
Now, to be fair, I checked "man cp" on several UNIX systems and the
tutorial value varies. UnixWare 7 and Solaris are both lousy (both
start off with dense descriptions, and UnixWare mutters darkly about what
shell metacharacters will do to you, while Solaris immediately confronts
you with a choice between regular cp and XPG4 cp), but Linux/FSF is
simpler and more concise, and OpenServer is best of all and even
contains some useful examples.
--
Jonathan Schilling SCO, Inc. j...@sco.com
$ help copy
COPY
Creates a new file from one or more existing files. The COPY
command can do the following:
o Copy an input file to an output file.
o Concatenate two or more input files into a single output file.
o Copy a group of input files to a group of output files.
Format
COPY input-filespec[,...] output-filespec
Additional information available:
PARAMETERS QUALIFIERS
/ALLOCATION /BACKUP /BEFORE /BY_OWNER /CONCATENATE
/CONFIRM /CONTIGUOUS /CREATED
/EXCLUDE /EXPIRED /EXTENSION /LOG /MODIFIED /OVERLAY
/PROTECTION /READ_CHECK /REPLACE /SINCE
/TRUNCATE /VOLUME /WRITE_CHECK
EXAMPLES
HELP COPY> examples
COPY
EXAMPLES
1. $ COPY TEST.DAT NEWTEST.DAT
In this example, the COPY command copies the contents of the
file TEST.DAT from the default disk and directory to a file
named NEWTEST.DAT on the same disk and directory. If a file
named NEWTEST.DAT exists, the COPY command creates a new
version of the file.
2. $ COPY ALPHA.TXT TMP
$ COPY ALPHA.TXT .TMP
In this example, the first COPY command copies the file
ALPHA.TXT into a file named TMP.TXT. The COPY command uses the
file type of the input file to complete the file specification
for the output file. The second COPY command creates a file
named ALPHA.TMP. The COPY command uses the file name of the
input file to name the output file.
3. $ COPY *.* PRTLND::*.*
In this example, the COPY command copies all files within the
user directory at the local node to the remote node PRTLND. The
new files have the same names as the input file. You must have
write (W) access to the default directory on remote node PRTLND
for the command to work.
4. $ COPY BOSTON::DISK2:TEST.DAT;5
_To: DALLAS"SAM SECReturn"::DISK0:[MODEL.TEST]TEST.DAT/ALLOCATION=50
In this example, the COPY command copies the file TEST.DAT;5
on the device DISK2 at node BOSTON to a new file named TEST.DAT
at remote node DALLAS. The /ALLOCATION qualifier initially
allocates 50 blocks for the new file TEST.DAT at node DALLAS.
The access control string SAM SECReturn is used to access the
remote directory.
Warren Young
>
> in
> general the conclusion I draw from stories like this is how
> unfriendly the UNIX command line interface is.
I won't give you too much argument on that subject, but if someone
professes Unix knowledge, I think I ought to be able to say "seedee user
ex adam" and have them know that they should type "cd /usr/X/adm". Too
many Unix administrators can't spell "user" or "et-see" or "adam"
properly. :)
--
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
Warren Young
>
> > cash register told him to. It would be cryptic to the same clerk
> > who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
> > cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
>
> Umm, why *are* you handing him an extra fifteen cents?
I think he miscalculated. He meant $2.13, to get back an even quarter.
I know this experience well -- it comes as a complete surprise to some
clerks that a person can pay out an odd amount in order to get a
desirably small number of bills or coins back.
Tony Lawrence
100% in agreement. Gaad, that's just incredibly dumb.. and yet-
it's a battle we will ultimately lose- and probably someday the
dictionaries also will have to bow to the stupidity of the
masses.
Tony Lawrence
>
> Richard Seeder wrote:
> >
> > > cash register told him to. It would be cryptic to the same clerk
> > > who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
> > > cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
> >
> > Umm, why *are* you handing him an extra fifteen cents?
>
> I think he miscalculated. He meant $2.13, to get back an even quarter.
No, I meant 2.15 to get back a quarter and two cents rather than
a dime and two cents- because I needed a quarter!
> I know this experience well -- it comes as a complete surprise to some
> clerks that a person can pay out an odd amount in order to get a
> desirably small number of bills or coins back.
Because basic math is as cryptic as Unix.
Jeff Liebermann
>You know the one I prefer. However 1). will require you to think
>about what you are doing, and have a little understanding. 2). Is
>the 'anyone can do this' approach, making users think they can't
>do something that is quicker and/or smarter.
You left out the target practice problem. I would spell out a command or
incantation, and they would type something different. Many people get
into the fatal habit of typing an entire line of commands while looking
at the keyboard, and then look at the screen to see what they actually
typed. I have several users that cannot move the mouse, without first
looking at the mouse, and then the screen. I also have users that are
very proud of themselves by anticipating what I'm going to ask them to do
over the phone, and immediately turn off the brain, start typing whatever
they guessed I was going to say, and then are suprised when I yell at
them "DONT HIT ENTER UNTIL I SAY TO HIT ENTER". Understanding can wait
after they learn to type, follow instructions, and not engage in
pre-emptive guesswork. However, I'm used to it. I'd rather be their
banker than their teacher.
>You still see 'news personalities' joking about how they can't set
>the time on their VCR's - so how many people don't even attempt it
>since it supposed to be 'so hard'.
Once upon a time, I designed marine radios. As complexity and feature
infestation grew, designing a proper and functional user interface was
becoming difficult. I had several revolutionary ideas (and also a few
revolting ideas) that would have made it much easier to operate, but was
unacceptable because Motorola (the big name in radios) did not do the
same thing. Another excuse was that it would require operator training
and was not obvious in an emergency based up the operators experience
with previous models. It's for conservative reasons like this that we
have defacto standards like QWERTY keyboards, useless TV remote controls,
unprogrammable VCR's, and other ergonomic atroscities. Mediocrity has
its place. If you think VCR is a programming nightmare, try the typical
ham radio.
>Computers are supposed to be
>even harder. If myth says something is hard, or that Unix is
>cryptic, then fewer will try.
Good point. I'll check with the public relations department of Unix
International and see if they have made any efforts to change this image.
I have a different view. Unix appears complex because most beginning
users have no evolutionary basis to build upon when dealing with the Unix
command line. It's no big step to go from the MSDOS command line to the
Unix shell command line. However, try to migrate a Windoze 95/98/ME or
MacIntosh GUI user to the Unix command line. I've given up trying. I
can tell them about all the "power" that is available on the command
line, but if it requires any effort beyond guessing which icon to click,
they won't exert it. GUI's are for lazy users.
>Well at least it would be more econmical to manufacture - if you
>didn't make it last long - as the current year is MMI.
The year is boring. My idea of a clock is something that changes.
The current time is XII:XVIII:PM (12:18PM).
The current date is I/XV/MMI (01/15/2001)
Shane Faulkner
> Except that NOW, because of the Microsoft Morons, they all think
> that "/" is a BACK SLASH, a stupidity that leaves me breathing
> deeply and clenching my teeth.
If I had a dollar for every time I've uttered the phrase
"the slash on the same key as the question mark"....
I'd have a few dollars. A lot of my phone support
calls start with the 3 golden rules:
1) when I say slash it's the one on the question mark key
2) no spaces unless I say space
3) all lowercase unless I explicity say uppercase
--
Shane Faulkner
Bill Vermillion
>Bill Vermillion (bi...@wjv.com) wrote:
>: In article <93thjg$rjj$1...@hobbes.sco.com>, J. L. Schilling <j...@sco.com> wrote:
>: >Another major point about UNIX being rough on beginners is that
>: >there is no on-line help.
>: [...] So what else had on line help on line in the past.
>Attached are two screens of output from "help copy" on VMS 5.5.
>The first is the top-level screen, the second after asking for
>examples.
Thanks. The examples cause me to ask a question. Does VMS
use the 8/3 namespace convention as MS does. All the examples
seem to imply that. No extensions past three or shown and
some examples are *.*.
I've had Unix users use cp */* /somewhere else, and then complain
that it's broken because something like foo.txt didn't copy.
Then I explain how wild cards work in Unix and that an * does
not mean wild card up to the file extension - it means the whole
thing or it wild card to the . and after - but it must contain a
dot. Those who understand see the power.
>Now, to be fair, I checked "man cp" on several UNIX systems and the
>tutorial value varies. UnixWare 7 and Solaris are both lousy (both
>start off with dense descriptions, and UnixWare mutters darkly about what
>shell metacharacters will do to you, while Solaris immediately confronts
>you with a choice between regular cp and XPG4 cp), but Linux/FSF is
>simpler and more concise, and OpenServer is best of all and even
[woops took out one line too many there]
You mean just knowing the flags on the command line isn't enough :-)
--------------
NAME
cp - copy files
SYNOPSIS
cp [-R [-H | -L | -P]] [-f | -i] [-pv] source_file target_file
cp [-R [-H | -L | -P]] [-f | -i] [-pv] source_file ... target_directory
Of course overload really comes into play for ls.
--------------
NAME
ls - list directory contents
SYNOPSIS
ls [-ABCFHLPRTWabcdfgiklnoqrstu1] [file ...]
Nice thing about Unix, you have so many options from
which to choose !:-)
Bill
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:47:17 GMT, bi...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>>You know the one I prefer. However 1). will require you to think
>>about what you are doing, and have a little understanding. 2). Is
>>the 'anyone can do this' approach, making users think they can't
>>do something that is quicker and/or smarter.
>You left out the target practice problem. ... .... I also have
>users that are very proud of themselves by anticipating what I'm
>going to ask them to do over the phone, and immediately turn off
>the brain, start typing whatever they guessed I was going to say,
>and then are suprised when I yell at them "DONT HIT ENTER UNTIL I
>SAY TO HIT ENTER".
Yeh. I have a few of those too. It's enough to drive you sane.
>>You still see 'news personalities' joking about how they can't set
>>the time on their VCR's - so how many people don't even attempt it
>>since it supposed to be 'so hard'.
>Once upon a time, I designed marine radios. As complexity and
>feature infestation grew, designing a proper and functional user
>interface was becoming difficult. .... ... If you think VCR is a
>programming nightmare, try the typical ham radio.
I don't think it's a night mare, but everyone has been convinced
that it's impossible to do so they don't even look at the user
interface.
However the nicest time/date function I used went like this,
on initial setup or afte a LONG power off.
Press the set date button.
Screen display comes up. Spin to the year you are currently in.
Press Next.
Spin the knob - to the correct month.
Press Next
Spin the knob to correct day.
Next
AM/PM
Next
Hour
Next
Minute
Next and it's done.
Programming to record anyting in the next 21 days is the same,
spin to date, and time. etc.
Sony has been successful with such things as the Walkman,
their co-design/debut of the CD, the BetaMax, et al, because they
seem to know that humans are going to be using their devices.
>>Computers are supposed to be even harder. If myth says something
>>is hard, or that Unix is cryptic, then fewer will try.
>Good point. I'll check with the public relations department of Unix
>International and see if they have made any efforts to change this
>image.
I thought UI was gone. I ran across one of their litte 1" rubber
world globes in my junk the other day. I also have their world
hologram pin somewhere. It's not the Unix side that say's it's
complex. It's the FUD from the non-Unix users. They repeat
what they've heard and have never seen the interface.
>I have a different view. Unix appears complex because most
>beginning users have no evolutionary basis to build upon when
>dealing with the Unix command line. It's no big step to go from the
>MSDOS command line to the Unix shell command line.
I'll disagree somewhat remember all the DOS 3.2 and 3.3 machines
used as terminals into the *ix system I was working on in the
late 1980s'. Everyone heard that Unix was hard and complex then,
and this is in a pure CLI - pre-windows environment. There were a
couple of users who had Windows 2.0 - with the Windows script that
looked like it was made on a Radio Shack model I.
>However, try to migrate a Windoze 95/98/ME or MacIntosh GUI user to
>the Unix command line. I've given up trying.
No argument from me there. We just need to improve the Unix
graphics environment. I still think NeXTStep interface was the
best of all worlds. Unix CLI - BSD style. Mouse click gave
you the program manager inteface of Windows 3.0. Mouse click gave
you a great GUI - where you could put all your favorite directory
ICONS in your home tray. The Mac OS/X tries, IMO, but fails.
Personal opinion only. You know how persnickety I can be - just
like you.
>I can tell them about all the "power" that is available on the
>command line, but if it requires any effort beyond guessing which
>icon to click, they won't exert it. GUI's are for lazy users.
No. UNIX is for 'lazy' users. You can do so much more with so
little effort. GUI's are for those who are lazy thinkers.
>>Well at least it would be more econmical to manufacture - if you
>>didn't make it last long - as the current year is MMI.
>The year is boring. My idea of a clock is something that changes.
>The current time is XII:XVIII:PM (12:18PM).
>The current date is I/XV/MMI (01/15/2001)
I envisoned both. The year string cant get very long and changes
considerable over the course of a century, but the hours/minutes
will remain the same over the same course of time, unless you
really want to be picky and start displaying the leap seconds
when they pop up. :-) Got to be quick. Blink and you miss 'em.
Bill
J. L. Schilling
: In article <93vjib$12p$1...@hobbes.sco.com>, J. L. Schilling <j...@sco.com> wrote:
: >Attached are two screens of output from "help copy" on VMS 5.5.
: >The first is the top-level screen, the second after asking for
: >examples.
: Thanks. The examples cause me to ask a question. Does VMS
: use the 8/3 namespace convention as MS does. All the examples
: seem to imply that. No extensions past three or shown and
: some examples are *.*.
Some ancient VMS releases had a 9.3 limit if I remember, but that was
long ago relaxed. Unlike UNIX, file extensions are a syntactic part
of the filename, so that something like "dir .exe" is equivalent to
"dir *.exe". The general filename form is device:[dir.dir]name.ext;n
where n is a version number. When you create a new version of a file
it leaves the old ones there as back versions (flight.txt;8 is newer
than flight.txt;7). Version ;0 always refers to the most recent
version; the "purge" command gets rid of all the back versions.
Not blowing away files is another example of how VMS is easier for
beginners to deal with.
VMS represents directory subtrees in the pathname syntax, with [...],
which means commands don't have to be aware of it. This is more
orthogonal than UNIX, where a few commands have -R to operate on a
directory subtree, but generally you have to use the "find" command,
which looks unlike every other UNIX command and is thus hard for
beginners to master (and which I doubt even real UNIX diehards are
proud of).
VMS command line recall and editing is always enabled and can be done
with just the arrow keys and delete keys, whereas in UNIX beginners
are faced with having to figure out if their shell even supports this
capability, and if so learning a subset of vi or emacs in order to use it.
Of course, there are areas where the UNIX command line interface is
stronger; pipes and I/O redirection is certainly one. In VMS you can't
reel off those "tr | sort | uniq | comm | sed -e > my.report" kind of
one-liners that UNIXphiles love to come up with. (Some years ago
Communications of the ACM had a contest between Donald Knuth and one
of the Bell Labs UNIX guys to provide a solution to some programming
problem. Knuth presented this well-crafted "literate" program complete
with a CS analysis of what the right data structure was to use. Of course
the problem was rigged and the UNIX guy could do it all in some one-liner.
But then again a letter to the editor in a subsequent issue pointed out
any number of modications that might be made to the problem spec, each of
which would cause the one-liner to collapse but Knuth's program to still
be standing. But I've digressed enough....)
Bill Vermillion
> In VMS you can't reel off those "tr | sort | uniq | comm | sed
>-e > my.report" kind of one-liners that UNIXphiles love to come
>up with. (Some years ago Communications of the ACM had a contest
>between Donald Knuth and one of the Bell Labs UNIX guys to provide
>a solution to some programming problem. Knuth presented this
>well-crafted "literate" program complete with a CS analysis of what
>the right data structure was to use. Of course the problem was
>rigged and the UNIX guy could do it all in some one-liner. But then
>again a letter to the editor in a subsequent issue pointed out any
>number of modications that might be made to the problem spec, each
>of which would cause the one-liner to collapse but Knuth's program
>to still be standing. But I've digressed enough....)
And I'll digress just a bit further on one-liners. I remeber
on the TRS80 where I first found out about computer 23 years ago
last month - there were contests on 1 line BASIC programs.
Lines were 240 characters because of tokenization limit.
One that really stood out was a communcations program in one line.
No frills certainly. But what you typed went out the serial port
and what came in went on the screen. Pick up the phone, dial a
number, put the handset in the coupler and have fun.
Amazing how small you can make something when you push it.
I ran across this from an old contest and was going to make
it my sig - and label it 'a map to my house'. What do you think?
Map to Bills' house.
%!
10 10 scale 1 setlinecap .4 setlinewidth 0 2 83 {0 2 59 {gsave exch dup 3
1 roll translate rand 1 and 1 eq {90 rotate} if newpath 0 -1 moveto -1 -1
1 0 90 arc 0 1 moveto 1 1 1 180 270 arc stroke grestore} for pop} for
showpage
Abuses the 4 line sig by just a bit.
Bill Vermillion
Shane Faulkner <ak...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote in message
>news:3A62E279...@aplawrence.com...
>> Except that NOW, because of the Microsoft Morons, they all think
>> that "/" is a BACK SLASH, a stupidity that leaves me breathing
>> deeply and clenching my teeth.
>If I had a dollar for every time I've uttered the phrase
....
Which brings to mind this sig I saw last week ...
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
Bill
Crossfire
[comments about overly-educated stumps cut]
] As to Unix being cryptic, yeah, it's cryptic in the same way
] logical thinking and the scientific method are cryptic. It would
] be cryptic to the store clerk who cheerfully gives you eighteen
] dollars worth of change from a ten dollar payment because his
] cash register told him to.
Counting back change is a lost art. *sigh*
] It would be cryptic to the same clerk
] who doesn't know what to do when you hand him an extra fifteen
] cents after he rang up a $1.88 sale and took your two dollars.
That's not being cryptic. That's assuming the clerk can read your
mind. I have a degree in mathematics AND worked as a clerk for five
years. If someone did this to me, I'd have to ask them why. If you
want a quarter, don't just toss extra money at the clerk; instead say,
"Here, lemme give you this extra 15 cents so you can give me a quarter."
That would be sufficient for me and roughly 50% of the people I worked
with; for the other 50% you'd have to give more detailed instructions
(after they gave you a look that basically said "core dumped").
--
Jon Reid -- jon <at> apeiros <dot> com
"Unix is like a Vorlon: it is enormously powerful, it gives terse, cryptic
responses, and it has a lot going on in the background."
Fulko Hew
> Thanks. The examples cause me to ask a question. Does VMS
> use the 8/3 namespace convention as MS does. All the examples
> seem to imply that. No extensions past three or shown and
> some examples are *.*.
When I started using VMS in 1982, it was 32.32;version#.
The 'dot' was a special character. There may have been an
earlier version (not much) that had more restrictions.
That version number was wonderful. I set my disk volumes to
only keep 3 versions back before they were auto-prunned.
Having one backup was OK, having a second saved my butt
a number of times. Having a backup tape was good, but
it only captured files once a day, but versioning... ahhh.
Bill Vermillion
>
>> Thanks. The examples cause me to ask a question. Does VMS
>> use the 8/3 namespace convention as MS does. All the examples
>> seem to imply that. No extensions past three or shown and
>> some examples are *.*.
>When I started using VMS in 1982, it was 32.32;version#.
>The 'dot' was a special character. There may have been an
>earlier version (not much) that had more restrictions.
Thanks. That makes sense. Too bad that was not shown in the
examples.
Jeff Liebermann
>However the nicest time/date function I used went like this,
>on initial setup or afte a LONG power off.
>
>Press the set date button.
>Screen display comes up. Spin to the year you are currently in.
>Press Next.
>Spin the knob - to the correct month.
>Press Next
>Spin the knob to correct day.
>Next
>AM/PM
>Next
>Hour
>Next
>Minute
>Next and it's done.
>
>Programming to record anyting in the next 21 days is the same,
>spin to date, and time. etc.
Rediculous. This turns the proceedure into something like the infamous
Microsloth Wizards, where one must go through the entire cerimony to
simply change one minor item. Every time daylight savings time comes
along, instead of tweaking just one value (hour), one has to go through
the whole cerimony in all its glory. No thanks.
Here's how I designed it:
Two shaft encoders. One labeled "function", the other labelled "Value".
They operate independently. Select the function you want to change (i.e.
hour) and the display will be reduced to only the valid sub-set of
acceptable values. Spin the value knob to set. Punch "save" to make the
value permanent.
>Sony has been successful with such things as the Walkman,
>their co-design/debut of the CD, the BetaMax, et al, because they
>seem to know that humans are going to be using their devices.
Huh? Have you ever tried to setup the monitor screen or use the DAS
service software from hell on one of their monitors. If ergonomics is
one of Sony's winners, the monitor division is a lost cause.
>I thought UI was gone.
Sorry. I was looking for a suitable Unix industry trade organization
that was willing to listen to my drivel and rants.
>>The year is boring. My idea of a clock is something that changes.
>>The current time is XII:XVIII:PM (12:18PM).
>>The current date is I/XV/MMI (01/15/2001)
>
>I envisoned both. The year string cant get very long and changes
>considerable over the course of a century, but the hours/minutes
>will remain the same over the same course of time, unless you
>really want to be picky and start displaying the leap seconds
>when they pop up. :-) Got to be quick. Blink and you miss 'em.
Remember, it's only hobby. We shouldn't take such things as the
aethetics of the command line seriously. I cheated and pre-allocated the
necessary space, used a two line prompt, and only update after you hit
the enter key.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:06:57 GMT, bi...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>
>
>>However the nicest time/date function I used went like this,
>>on initial setup or afte a LONG power off.
>>
>>Press the set date button.
>>Screen display comes up. Spin to the year you are currently in.
>>Press Next.
>>Spin the knob - to the correct month.
>>Press Next
>>Spin the knob to correct day.
>>Next
>>AM/PM
>>Next
>>Hour
>>Next
>>Minute
>>Next and it's done.
>>Programming to record anyting in the next 21 days is the same,
>>spin to date, and time. etc.
>Rediculous. This turns the proceedure into something like the infamous
>Microsloth Wizards, where one must go through the entire cerimony to
>simply change one minor item.
No. You only do the year when you need to. If it's something
smaller it actually comes up in the menu. I'm not sure if it comes
up to time or day when you just touch the time change.
>Every time daylight savings time comes
>along, instead of tweaking just one value (hour), one has to go through
>the whole cerimony in all its glory. No thanks.
You underestimate Sony. Notice that I did show it had year and
month functions. Daylight savings time is totally transparent.
It really is an easy interface for any user. Haven't seen anything
like it on anything else. The automatic time set from the
networks, typically PBS, is quite nice, until your local cable
company decides to strip that information out.
>Here's how I designed it:
>Two shaft encoders. One labeled "function", the other labelled
>"Value". They operate independently. Select the function you want
>to change (i.e. hour) and the display will be reduced to only the
>valid sub-set of acceptable values. Spin the value knob to set.
>Punch "save" to make the value permanent.
OK.
>>Sony has been successful with such things as the Walkman,
>>their co-design/debut of the CD, the BetaMax, et al, because they
>>seem to know that humans are going to be using their devices.
>Huh? Have you ever tried to setup the monitor screen or use the DAS
>service software from hell on one of their monitors. If ergonomics is
>one of Sony's winners, the monitor division is a lost cause.
Notice I was talking about consumer items - nowhere did I mention
computer suttf. What's DAS?
>>I thought UI was gone.
>Sorry. I was looking for a suitable Unix industry trade organization
>that was willing to listen to my drivel and rants.
About the only Unix standard bearer left is SCO - and the copyright
for the name was given to ??? - but I'd not call them a trad
association.
>>>The year is boring. My idea of a clock is something that changes.
>>>The current time is XII:XVIII:PM (12:18PM).
>>>The current date is I/XV/MMI (01/15/2001)
>>I envisoned both. The year string cant get very long and changes
>>considerable over the course of a century, but the hours/minutes
>>will remain the same over the same course of time, unless you
>>really want to be picky and start displaying the leap seconds
>>when they pop up. :-) Got to be quick. Blink and you miss 'em.
>Remember, it's only hobby. We shouldn't take such things as
>the aethetics of the command line seriously. I cheated and
>pre-allocated the necessary space, used a two line prompt, and only
>update after you hit the enter key.
Well we have to take the trivial things seriously so we can
treat the serious things lightly. Otherwise we'd go [sane|insane].
Scott Neugroschl
Crossfire wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:36:41 -0500, Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>
> [comments about overly-educated stumps cut]
>
> ] As to Unix being cryptic, yeah, it's cryptic in the same way
> ] logical thinking and the scientific method are cryptic. It would
> ] be cryptic to the store clerk who cheerfully gives you eighteen
> ] dollars worth of change from a ten dollar payment because his
> ] cash register told him to.
>
> Counting back change is a lost art. *sigh*
I know. All they do is say "$4.37 your change", instead of counting it
out
properly like I learned how to do...
"$2.67, 68, 69, 70, 75, $3, $4, $5, and $5 more is $10. Thank you for
shopping at 7-11".
Not only that, but I had to walk uphill 15 miles both ways through a
raging snowstorm
to give change. And I was glad to do it, too! :-)
Scott
Scott Neugroschl
My new VCR set the time automagically. apparently PBS broadcasts a time
sync.
Of course, I still set all clocks (including the OLD VCR) on the
semi-annual "Count-the-Clocks-You-Own Day Celebration" aka the start and
end of DST.
Bill Vermillion
Crossfire <jonLU...@MEATapeiros.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:02:46 -0500, james <brojo...@home.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>] 2)What is everyone opinion about a UNIX hobbiest trying to make a
>] career out of UNIX? And what pointers to give 'em.
>Been there, done that. Bought the t-shirt, ate the burger, listened
>to the original cast album...
>My one piece of advice is to not be intimidated by over-educated
>self-proclaimed "gurus." Experience is as good as (and in some
>cases even preferable to) formal education when it comes to system
>administration.
I just ran across a printout - and here is a pointer to a great
article called "The Elements of Style: UNIX as Literature".
In the second paragraph it relates a story about manager who was
intimidated by the Ph.D's and gifted hackers in an all-UNIX shop.
The last line of that paragraph read "I need to become more
of an intellectual," he said, "I'm going to learn UNIX".
Many of the points it makes fit my views - and differ with others.
But it's a decent piece and I'd recommend at least perusing it
for readers of this thread. Others I've forwarded to have at
least found it interesting.
It's from the departed Unix Review magzine. [I'm transcribing
this from an alternate Lynx screen so if there are typos
it's the September 1998 issue.]
http://www.unixreview.com/archives/articles/1998/september/9809of1.shtml
Happy reading.
Bill
Bill Vermillion
Scott Neugroschl <sco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>> In article <6e396t44k5muslkmr...@4ax.com>,
>> Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:06:57 GMT, bi...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>> >>However the nicest time/date function I used went like this,
>> >>on initial setup or afte a LONG power off.
>> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
>My new VCR set the time automagically. apparently PBS broadcasts a
>time sync.
Mine VCR used to do that too. I suspect Time Warner has stripped
this out of the signal - as it just stopped doing this recently.
They are doing major digital conversions after being hit hard by the
DBS satellite systems. I had heard that TCI also did this at least
in some cities. Always someone there trying to screw us up.
Brian K. White
>
> Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com) wrote:
>
> : Absolutely- the most seriously brain dead, dumb as a stump,
> : completely unbelievable moron I ever had the displeasure to work
> : with had at least one Phd, and I think a few other degrees,
> : several patents to his name, and had been MIS director for some
> : very impressive corporate names. Yet, while trying to help him
> : track down a problem on the phone, we had gone through multiple
> : incantations of me saying "see-dee-SPACE-slash-you-ess-are-slash"
> : thingies. After the 5th or sixth I left out the SPACE, and he
> : obediently didn't type it, of course got an error, and chastised
> : me for not giving proper directions. [...]
>
> Didn't know this person or this circumstance, obviously, but in
> general the conclusion I draw from stories like this is how
> ("cd" sounds like something that plays music); spellings leave out
> letters (what's wrong with "/user"? "copy"?); pathnames don't
> differentiate between device names, directory names, and file names;
> case is sensitive; recalling and editing previous commands is hard or
> impossible for beginners; and so on.
the fact that all directories, drives, & devices just look like the same
kind of path is *good*
the fact that case is sensative is *good*
the fact that there are zillions of "cryptic" commands with zillions of
"cryptic" options available is *good*
complaining about all this excellent consistancy and wide open flexability
which is what makes anything imaginable acheivable because its "hard to
learn" is like being bill gates and complaining that he can't get by with
a nice simple checking account anymore because he has too many billions.
I'm not sympathetic to that. I'm sympathetic to the extent that I'll agree
with someone that yep, theres a noticeable learning curve to overcome, but
isn't that so with any endeavor in the world? At least any worth doing?
and I'll help a guy figure it all out who wants to, and I'll help anyone
else realise that it's ok if your not the sysadmin, just like it's ok that
I'm not the lawyer. I have no patience at all for the notion that unix
should be both ultimately flexable and powerful and at the same time
magically safe for any clod to walk up and poke their finger into the
works and be safe from doing harm. You can't have it both ways. easy, or
capable. any muddy mid-way point I don't even want to *think* about (NT)
having user-firendl apps on unix is fine, including X and all the gui
apps. Even some of the gui sysadmin utils, *if* they are thorough, and can
be relied upon not to ever make anything worse that can't also be undon
just as easily from the same gui util. a lot of these things seem to have
a habit of being capable a messing something up that can only be fixed the
old-fashioned way.
there is still user-interface efficiency progress I guess though. I pretty
much like a lot of what the enhancements to the shell and other utilities
in gnu stuff. like the arrow-keys in bash and less, various fancy new
options to supporting utils, like tar being able to compress/decompress
with gzip and bzip2 without having to construct a pipe.. though in that
particular case... I don't beleive in removing pipes by building things
into utils, like the way some msdos commands have a pager built in. in the
case of gnu tar, gzip is not built-in, merely the ability to recognize the
file type and call the external compressor if available.
I don't think unix has to make any apologies or concessions. Anything you
do to it to dumb it down now would be a crying shame of a set-back.
--
Brian K. White http://www.squonk.net/users/linut
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
J. L. Schilling
: [...] complaining about all this excellent consistancy [...]
We also said in the preface that the [UNIX] system was not perfect.
After nine chapters describing programs with strange conventions,
pointless differences, and arbitrary limitations, you will surely
agree. In spite of such blemishes, however, the positive benefits
far outweigh the occasional irritating rough edges. The UNIX system
is really good at what it was designed to do: providing a
comfortable programming environment.
-- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
Bill Campbell
If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they might learn
something and stop bitching. It's still the first book I recommend to
anybody wanting to learn *ix systems. It sits on my bookshelf within easy
reach even though I started using Xenix in 1982 on the Radio Shack Model 16.
``GUIs make simple things simple and complex things impossible'' -- Doug Gwyn
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your consul, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
ye were our countrymen.'' -- Samuel Adams (American Patriot)
Jeff Liebermann
>Mine VCR used to do that too. I suspect Time Warner has stripped
>this out of the signal - as it just stopped doing this recently.
>They are doing major digital conversions after being hit hard by the
>DBS satellite systems. I had heard that TCI also did this at least
>in some cities. Always someone there trying to screw us up.
Welcome to cable politics. Time Warner stripped out EVERYTHING on the
vertical retrace interval because they were pissed off at Gemstar (the
litigatory owner of TV Guide and almost all directory services). In the
process, they also hosed some paging data, a wireless fax service, a
stock reporting service, and the time codes.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
>
>If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they might learn
>something and stop bitching. It's still the first book I recommend to
>anybody wanting to learn *ix systems. It sits on my bookshelf within easy
>reach even though I started using Xenix in 1982 on the Radio Shack Model 16.
I beg to differ. When the introductory text for Unix complainers is
book on *PROGRAMMING*, one tends to suspect that the purpose of Unix is
to manufacture programmers out of users. I assure that it is possible to
be functional in Unix without learning how to program. I cite myself as
a semi-functional example as I can't program my way out of paper bag. If
I threw that book at my users, they would instantly run away.
Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment that's
difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's difficult for
programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order. In any compromise,
converting users into programmers, or programmers into efficient users,
is IMHO impossible.
Jean-Pierre Radley
| On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:53:02 GMT, Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com>
| wrote:
|
| >> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
| >
| >If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they might learn
| >something and stop bitching. It's still the first book I recommend to
| >anybody wanting to learn *ix systems. It sits on my bookshelf within easy
| >reach even though I started using Xenix in 1982 on the Radio Shack Model 16.
|
| I beg to differ. When the introductory text for Unix complainers is
| book on *PROGRAMMING*, one tends to suspect that the purpose of Unix is
| to manufacture programmers out of users. I assure that it is possible to
| be functional in Unix without learning how to program. I cite myself as
| a semi-functional example as I can't program my way out of paper bag. If
| I threw that book at my users, they would instantly run away.
|
| Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment that's
| difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's difficult for
| programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order. In any compromise,
| converting users into programmers, or programmers into efficient users,
| is IMHO impossible.
Did you ever read that book Jeff? It was my first (and best) tutor about
Unix.
--
JP
Warren Young
>
> Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment that's
> difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's difficult for
> programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order.
It's been tried at least once. BeOS has a beautiful programming API,
and a beautiful user interface. They then discovered that installed
base trumps beauty on any level.
Jim Richardson
And, believe it or not, pretty much interesting and fun.
--
Jim Richardson
I like NT because it constantly reminds me of my daughter.
"Honest Daddy, I wasn't doing anything and it just broke."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Brian K. White
>
> Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment that's
> difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's difficult for
> programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order. In any compromise,
> converting users into programmers, or programmers into efficient users,
> is IMHO impossible.
Unix is a *computing* environment. PlayStation is a gaming environment.
Windows is a .... well the imagination staggers...
Tony Lawrence
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:53:02 GMT, Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
> >
> >If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they might learn
> >something and stop bitching. It's still the first book I recommend to
> >anybody wanting to learn *ix systems. It sits on my bookshelf within easy
> >reach even though I started using Xenix in 1982 on the Radio Shack Model 16.
>
> I beg to differ. When the introductory text for Unix complainers is
> book on *PROGRAMMING*, one tends to suspect that the purpose of Unix is
> to manufacture programmers out of users. I assure that it is possible to
> be functional in Unix without learning how to program. I cite myself as
> a semi-functional example as I can't program my way out of paper bag. If
> I threw that book at my users, they would instantly run away.
Don't judge a book by its title- a lot of it isn't about
programming at all.
Also, the complainers that matter are the administrator/support
types, who really shouldn't be turned off by basic programming
ideas.
--
Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
Bill Vermillion
>> Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment
>> that's difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's
>> difficult for programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order.
>It's been tried at least once. BeOS has a beautiful programming API,
>and a beautiful user interface. They then discovered that installed
>base trumps beauty on any level.
Well NeXTStep was finally profitable before Steve Jobs had to go
back to Apple to fix them up. Wonderful interface - at least for
me. Looking at the underpinning there was a learning curve on
programming hower as the base OS was pretty much object oriented.
Sherri Osted
beginners out there. What better way is there to get a fundemental
grasp of basic Unix princples needed for system administantion and
troubleshooting.
However I do not beleive that it would be any good for the end user.
(The targeted Windows user.) I don't want any of those people at the
command line if I can help it. Things get broken that way.
Sherri
--
Sherri Osted
Government of the NWT
Liquor Commission
Hay River, NT Ca
Bill Vermillion
Sherri Osted <Sherri...@gov.nt.ca> wrote:
>In article <5vqb6tc9n0ns9jbdj...@4ax.com>,
> je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:53:02 GMT, Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
>> >If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they
>> >might learn something and stop bitching. ...
>> I beg to differ. When the introductory text for Unix complainers
>> is book on *PROGRAMMING*, one tends to suspect that the purpose
>> of Unix is to manufacture programmers out of users. ...
>I agree with all of you who say that this is the best Unix book for
>beginners out there. What better way is there to get a fundemental
>grasp of basic Unix princples needed for system administantion and
>troubleshooting.
>However I do not beleive that it would be any good for the end user.
>(The targeted Windows user.) I don't want any of those people at the
>command line if I can help it. Things get broken that way.
Things don't have to break. A lot of the original ISP's
had shell accounts available for users. It takes a bit of work,
but you can make a closed system fairly immune from the most
dedicated employee. It could be a very good place for the
end user to learn Unix.
Bill Vermillion
>> Perhaps that's the problem. Unix is a programming environment that's
>> difficult for users. Windoze is a user environment, that's difficult for
>> programmers. Perhaps a compromise is in order. In any compromise,
>> converting users into programmers, or programmers into efficient users,
>> is IMHO impossible.
>Unix is a *computing* environment. PlayStation is a gaming environment.
At the moment. There were ITAR rumblings about the power of the
128bit CPU in the playstation.
Jeff Liebermann
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:47:35 GMT, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> wrote:
>| >> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
>Did you ever read that book Jeff? It was my first (and best) tutor about
>Unix.
Sure. I read it when I had illusions of becoming a programmer. It was
literally the first Unix programming book that I studied. I still use it
as a reference along with some others (Advanced Unix Programming by Marc
Rochkind 1985) from that era. I won't claim to understand or have
sucessfully mastered the content.
However, this has zilch to do with my point. We were discussing Unix as
a hobby with some comments on users and beginners reactions to the Unix
command line. Bill Campbell suggested the above book for such beginners.
I suggested that teaching hobbyists, beginners, and tinkerers to program
as a starting exercise would surely guarantee a panic reaction.
One must learn to drive a car before one can be a mechanic or automobile
designer. Similarly, one must learn to *USE* a Unix system before one
can become a programmer.
There's a large grey area that revolves around public domain software
porting. This seems to be the major pastime of the Linux hobbyist.
Getting some obscure application to compile and install isn't exactly
programming, but it's certainly not part of being a "user".
Scott Neugroschl
Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> In article <3A650F91...@pacbell.net>,
> Scott Neugroschl <sco...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
>
> >Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> >> In article <6e396t44k5muslkmr...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:06:57 GMT, bi...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
> >> >>However the nicest time/date function I used went like this,
> >> >>on initial setup or afte a LONG power off.
>
> >> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
>
> >My new VCR set the time automagically. apparently PBS broadcasts a
> >time sync.
>
> Mine VCR used to do that too. I suspect Time Warner has stripped
> this out of the signal - as it just stopped doing this recently.
> They are doing major digital conversions after being hit hard by the
> DBS satellite systems. I had heard that TCI also did this at least
> in some cities. Always someone there trying to screw us up.
>
No, mine did it on TWC cable.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Greetings from "Rotating Outage Block 08".
>
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:47:35 GMT, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> wrote:
>>| >> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
>>Did you ever read that book Jeff? It was my first (and best) tutor about
>>Unix.
>Sure. I read it when I had illusions of becoming a programmer. It
>was literally the first Unix programming book that I studied. I
>still use it as a reference along with some others (Advanced Unix
>Programming by Marc Rochkind 1985) from that era. I won't claim to
>understand or have sucessfully mastered the content.
Since we are on books here, let me mention two that I think are
pretty good for those who are over the first hurdle and trying
to understand what this morass of comands which we call Unix can do.
Power Tools from O'Reilly. A lot of information gleaned from the
net over the years with real way's of how to do things. It's in a
huge paperback, or in one of the O'Reilly 6 books on a CD set.
The other is "Unix for the Impatient". Don't let the title throw
you - this is not learn Unix in 24 hours or the like.
This covers a lot of Unix material and has all the fluff taken out,
so you get to the information quickly. It's broad based as is the
O'Reilly.
--
Jerad Stoops
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:32:07AM +0000, J. L. Schilling wrote:
>
>> Brian K. White (li...@squonk.net) wrote:
>>
>> : [...] complaining about all this excellent consistancy [...]
>>
>> We also said in the preface that the [UNIX] system was not perfect.
>> After nine chapters describing programs with strange conventions,
>> pointless differences, and arbitrary limitations, you will surely
>> agree. In spite of such blemishes, however, the positive benefits
>> far outweigh the occasional irritating rough edges. The UNIX system
>> is really good at what it was designed to do: providing a
>> comfortable programming environment.
>>
>> -- Kernighan & Pike, "The UNIX Programming Environment", 1984.
>
>
> If people who claim that Unix is bad would read this book, they might learn
> something and stop bitching. It's still the first book I recommend to
> anybody wanting to learn *ix systems. It sits on my bookshelf within easy
> reach even though I started using Xenix in 1982 on the Radio Shack Model 16.
>
> ``GUIs make simple things simple and complex things impossible'' -- Doug Gwyn
>
Spend a day or two in a graphics program like Photoshop and see if you
don't start becoming a little more fond of GUIs. One of the first
experiences that I had with computers was plotting a bitmap graphic on
screen on an Apple IIe in BASIC. Took over a thousand lines of code and
a week to do. Looked awful.
It comes down to using the right tool for the job. I wouldn't want to
set up the cover of a catalog in a character environment anymore than I
would want to completely administrate a unix system in a gui. Nor would
I want to be a user by trade with certain tasks to complete in a day
through some unfamiliar, cryptic interface.
Alot of how one feels about GUIs depends on what programs you use and
how they are written. There are many programs in windows that are
completely annoying because of how they are designed. But many programs
like Photoshop and others have very well organized interfaces that are
very efficient at completing the job at hand. Many programs in UNIX that
are in the GUI environment are simply "GUI-ized" versions of character
interface programs that you were already comfortable with and therefore
find little benefit from them.
Linux may very well have stumbled upon the best compromise though. There
you can have it both ways. It lets a new user crawl before they walk, so
to speak. They can get familiar with the system through the GUI and
actually accomplish some tasks, which is important because if a new user
can't see any gain by using the system then it is only fustration. Once
they have gotten to a point they will start to need to do more advanced
tasks. They can get help because they can actually *find* the online
help in the GUI which will help them in either the character or GUI
environment. Of course there are some examples of ones who began in
Linux and shatter the fairy tail flavor of this idea :-(
One of the things that helps me in windows is that I can program in
Visual Basic and Visual FoxPro. Just like one would write a shell script
in UNIX to perform a task, I might write a quick program that will do
what I need but windows is clueless on. Sometimes I forget just how
useful that is. When things get really bad I write a program in windows
that executes a cgi script on a UNIX server and returns the results to a
text file or a hidden browser in the program.
So don't use a screwdriver for a pry bar. If all you do is UNIX system
administration then you probably have no desire for a GUI. But if you do
graphics work, video editing, etc... you will probably find a GUI quite
useful :-)
Jerad
Bill Vermillion
Most of the discussion on GUI centers around it's use instead
of a command line interface. Photoshop is a program. I've fired
off more than one graphics program from a CLI in the SGI systems.
>It comes down to using the right tool for the job. I wouldn't want
>to set up the cover of a catalog in a character environment anymore
>than I would want to completely administrate a unix system in a
>gui. Nor would I want to be a user by trade with certain tasks to
>complete in a day through some unfamiliar, cryptic interface.
Some systems GUI interfaces won't let you perform tasks which you
could easily perform if a CLI were available.
>Alot of how one feels about GUIs depends on what programs you use and
>how they are written.
Programs have their own interfaces. As I said - most of the GUI
discussion is focused on having to perform system adminstration or
configuration through a GUI vs a CLI.
>There are many programs in windows that are completely annoying
>because of how they are designed.
Don't limit that to Windows :-)
> But many programs like Photoshop and others have very well
>organized interfaces that are very efficient at completing the job
>at hand. Many programs in UNIX that are in the GUI environment are
>simply "GUI-ized" versions of character interface programs that you
>were already comfortable with and therefore find little benefit
>from them.
I've never used Photoshop in anything but a Unix environment.
I can't imagine having to type raw code in postscript
like this:
%!
10 10 scale 1 setlinecap .4 setlinewidth 0 2 83 {0 2 59 {gsave exch dup 3
1 roll translate rand 1 and 1 eq {90 rotate} if newpath 0 -1 moveto -1 -1
1 0 90 arc 0 1 moveto 1 1 1 180 270 arc stroke grestore} for pop} for
showpage
Or even this:
%!
newpath 0 1 50{50 div sqrt setgray 170 120 moveto 270 300 -130 740 270 660
curveto 670 900 470 250 170 120 curveto fill [.9 .03 -.02 .95 37 17]concat} for
showpage
>Linux may very well have stumbled upon the best compromise though.
>There you can have it both ways. It lets a new user crawl before
>they walk, so to speak. They can get familiar with the system
>through the GUI and actually accomplish some tasks, which is
>important because if a new user can't see any gain by using the
>system then it is only fustration.
Don't know why you think Linux stumbled on to this. GUI's in Unix
have been around before Linux came about.
> Once they have gotten to a point
>they will start to need to do more advanced tasks. They can get
>help because they can actually *find* the online help in the GUI
>which will help them in either the character or GUI environment.
Hm. You can fine on line help in the GUI on SCO, and you can
search it too. You did post to the SCO group so I'm assuming this
is what you meant.
>So don't use a screwdriver for a pry bar. If all you do is UNIX
>system administration then you probably have no desire for a
>GUI. But if you do graphics work, video editing, etc... you will
>probably find a GUI quite useful :-)
I don't think anyone is advocating using one or the other. Use
them both. Things become problematic when you know how to do
something but the GUI is not programmed for that operation and
there is no CLI for it.
Jerad Stoops
I guess I failed to get my thought across. My thought was that there are many
administration tasks that could be made much easier to do through a GUI, but no one
has ever done it. Sure, there are many things like SCOadmin and so forth, but still
they lack alot. I was only using Photoshop as an example of a program with a well
designed GUI.
>
>
> >There are many programs in windows that are completely annoying
> >because of how they are designed.
>
> Don't limit that to Windows :-)
I lasted about a day on a Macintosh. Maybe it was just me but most things were
rather annoying. :-)
>
>
> > But many programs like Photoshop and others have very well
> >organized interfaces that are very efficient at completing the job
> >at hand. Many programs in UNIX that are in the GUI environment are
> >simply "GUI-ized" versions of character interface programs that you
> >were already comfortable with and therefore find little benefit
> >from them.
>
> I've never used Photoshop in anything but a Unix environment.
> I can't imagine having to type raw code in postscript
> like this:
>
> %!
> 10 10 scale 1 setlinecap .4 setlinewidth 0 2 83 {0 2 59 {gsave exch dup 3
> 1 roll translate rand 1 and 1 eq {90 rotate} if newpath 0 -1 moveto -1 -1
> 1 0 90 arc 0 1 moveto 1 1 1 180 270 arc stroke grestore} for pop} for
> showpage
>
> Or even this:
>
> %!
> newpath 0 1 50{50 div sqrt setgray 170 120 moveto 270 300 -130 740 270 660
> curveto 670 900 470 250 170 120 curveto fill [.9 .03 -.02 .95 37 17]concat} for
> showpage
My point exactly. Postscript would never have come to the point that it has if it
stayed a command line interface. But as far as GUI-ized programs I was mainly
referring to things like mail programs and such.
I can't imagine having to type raw postscript either, but I've sure had to hack it a
few times to get it to work on a few things :-)
Side Note-
Have you seen the new Adobe InDesign? Really nice program. One of it's new features
is the ability to script it from Visual Basic/Foxpro or Apple Script depending on
the platform it's on. Your postscript above reminded me of some of the scripting
commands that it has.
>
>
> >Linux may very well have stumbled upon the best compromise though.
> >There you can have it both ways. It lets a new user crawl before
> >they walk, so to speak. They can get familiar with the system
> >through the GUI and actually accomplish some tasks, which is
> >important because if a new user can't see any gain by using the
> >system then it is only fustration.
>
> Don't know why you think Linux stumbled on to this. GUI's in Unix
> have been around before Linux came about.
I don't. Quite often though, the one to innovate something isn't the one who
popularizes it. The difference is that no one uses Unix GUI's on the desktop, but
it's the "in thing" to run Linux on the desktop. I just installed Corel Linux
recently. I'd heard that it was "a better windows than windows" but didn't really
believe it. It was really nice. Of course I wouldn't run it in a server environment,
but it was nice to have a really well thought out GUI to work in, but still be able
to work on the command line when I wanted to. The GUI has about everything and the
kitchen sink. It's a shame that it won't ever make it big, but it really is what
windows should have been. It took 20 minutes to install with not even one glitch.
Ran it for several days without one problem. Considered getting Win4Lin installed on
it and replacing my windows computers with it.
>
>
> > Once they have gotten to a point
> >they will start to need to do more advanced tasks. They can get
> >help because they can actually *find* the online help in the GUI
> >which will help them in either the character or GUI environment.
>
> Hm. You can fine on line help in the GUI on SCO, and you can
> search it too. You did post to the SCO group so I'm assuming this
> is what you meant.
No. I was referring to finding help on the command line vs help on the GUI. The
problem is, is that people don't seem to want to read the docs. Any time I have a
problem it's the first thing I look at. Most of the things I've learned on computers
came straight out of the documentation. But most people who are fairly new to
computers or are on an unfamiliar system give up rather quickly and want some one to
give them the answer rather than finding it themselves. I really like the online
help in the GUI on SCO, probably couldn't get by with out it, but I think that there
are some better online help GUIs than it out there for sure.
>
>
> >So don't use a screwdriver for a pry bar. If all you do is UNIX
> >system administration then you probably have no desire for a
> >GUI. But if you do graphics work, video editing, etc... you will
> >probably find a GUI quite useful :-)
>
> I don't think anyone is advocating using one or the other. Use
> them both. Things become problematic when you know how to do
> something but the GUI is not programmed for that operation and
> there is no CLI for it.
Definately. One of my favorite programs to use is the Visual Foxpro 6 IDE. It has
both right there together. A real nice GUI with a command line window right there as
well. It also displays the commands in the command window that were used for tasks
in the GUI. I wish everything was that way.
>
>
> --
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Jerad