Mount/Unmount USB External Hard Disk in Linux

158 views
Skip to first unread message

jaylinux53

unread,
Aug 23, 2009, 8:55:10 PM8/23/09
to
On Ubuntu 9.04, GNOME desktop, I use a Seagate FreeAgent Go (160 GB)
External USB Hard Drive for backups.

Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
Nautilus side pane ?
After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
so I was wondering if it is safe to remove it with the 'Unmount' menu
option, with the orange light still on - or will this result in data
loss ?

(So far no problems with this type of unmounting with the light still
on, but this HD is new & I have used it only a couple of times. Unlike
in Windows, there is no message stating "Safe to remove USB drive" &
the orange light still glows even after unmounting it through Nautlius
side-pane)

Any other suggestions to get a proper spin-don to unmount the ext
drive ?

Thanks,

Jay

Thad Floryan

unread,
Aug 23, 2009, 9:18:59 PM8/23/09
to
On 8/23/2009 5:55 PM, jaylinux53 wrote:
> On Ubuntu 9.04, GNOME desktop, I use a Seagate FreeAgent Go (160 GB)
> External USB Hard Drive for backups.
>
> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
> Nautilus side pane ?
> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
> so I was wondering if it is safe to remove it with the 'Unmount' menu
> option, with the orange light still on - or will this result in data
> loss ?
>
> (So far no problems with this type of unmounting with the light still
> on, but this HD is new & I have used it only a couple of times. Unlike
> in Windows, there is no message stating "Safe to remove USB drive" &
> the orange light still glows even after unmounting it through Nautlius
> side-pane)

Annoying, isn't it?

The safest way to check to be sure it's properly unmounted (e.g., a
sync followed by umount) is in a terminal window by entering "df" and
looking at what is (and isn't) mounted.

I use an external USB drive on my SheevaPlug running Ubuntu 9.04 and
the disk setup looks like this:

root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 9.04 \n \l

root@debian:~# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 250.0 GB, 250059350016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x5b6ac646

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 30401 244196001 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)

root@debian:~# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs 519168 195036 324132 38% /
tmpfs 257816 0 257816 0% /lib/init/rw
varrun 257816 272 257544 1% /var/run
varlock 257816 0 257816 0% /var/lock
udev 257816 12 257804 1% /dev
tmpfs 257816 0 257816 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 257816 38712 219104 16% /var/cache/apt
/dev/sda1 244136352 119008 244017344 1% /media/usbhd

root@debian:~# umount /media/usbhd

root@debian:~# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs 519168 195036 324132 38% /
tmpfs 257816 0 257816 0% /lib/init/rw
varrun 257816 272 257544 1% /var/run
varlock 257816 0 257816 0% /var/lock
udev 257816 12 257804 1% /dev
tmpfs 257816 0 257816 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 257816 38712 219104 16% /var/cache/apt

It's definitely now unmounted. :-)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 1:05:17 AM8/24/09
to

I'd do it from the command line. Find out first where it
is mounted with df. Then su to root:

# umount -l /mnt/whatever

Then check and see if it worked with df.

Sid

Message has been deleted

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 4:58:06 AM8/24/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> jaylinux53 wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Ubuntu 9.04, GNOME desktop, I use a Seagate FreeAgent Go
>> (160 GB) External USB Hard Drive for backups.
>>
>> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount'
>> in the Nautilus side pane ? After clicking 'Unmount', the
>> orange light on the ext HD still glows, so I was wondering if
>> it is safe to remove it with the 'Unmount' menu option, with
>> the orange light still on - or will this result in data loss ?
>>
>> (So far no problems with this type of unmounting with the
>> light still on, but this HD is new & I have used it only
>> a couple of times. Unlike in Windows, there is no message
>> stating "Safe to remove USB drive" & the orange light still
>> glows even after unmounting it through Nautlius side-pane)
>

> I just check with 'mount' at the command line. So far it's been
> OK, although I only use mine for monthly off-machine backups on
> several machines so it doesn't happen too often.
>
> If you're really paranoid, go have a cup of tea after
> unmounting and before unplugging, so that it has plenty of time
> to flush any remaining data to disk. -- Dave da v...@llondel.org
> (without the space) So many gadgets, so little time.
>

Better to run the sync command and wait for it to finish before
umounting the disk. Not that it's really necessary.

Sid


Grant

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 6:28:16 AM8/24/09
to
On 24 Aug 2009 10:58:06 +0200, Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

...


>Better to run the sync command and wait for it to finish before
>umounting the disk. Not that it's really necessary.

Clueless, again...

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au

Dan C

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 8:59:55 AM8/24/09
to

LOL!

If it's "not really necessary", why the fuck would he want to do it?

You stupid fuck. Quit trying to give advice about Linux, when you
clearly know nothing about it at all.

Bugger off, whacko Alan Connor.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.

7

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 3:40:25 PM8/24/09
to
jaylinux53 wrote:

> On Ubuntu 9.04, GNOME desktop, I use a Seagate FreeAgent Go (160 GB)
> External USB Hard Drive for backups.
>
> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
> Nautilus side pane ?
> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
> so I was wondering if it is safe to remove it with the 'Unmount' menu
> option, with the orange light still on - or will this result in data
> loss ?
>
> (So far no problems with this type of unmounting with the light still
> on, but this HD is new & I have used it only a couple of times. Unlike
> in Windows, there is no message stating "Safe to remove USB drive" &

Nonsense!

There is such a message but because Linux is too quick, you don't
get to see it!!!

You can sometimes catch it if the CPU was busy and your drive
was busy as well and stuff is still being written when you press unmount.

Its safe to unmount after the message.
If the message didn't show, it was because it was too quick
for you to see it, and thus it is still safe to power off.

It is strange the lights on the disk still glow.
It could have been connected in reverse because they go back
to the board with a wire and a header connector that could
easily get reversed.
Power it on with the device unplugged to the computer and see
if light is still on.
And does it glow brighter when writing?
That might reveal more clues.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 4:27:39 PM8/24/09
to

I haven't got a usb DRIVE but I tried it on a USB stick.

Right click the disk icon on the desktop, select unmount, and there is a
flurry of activity as the caches are flushed. Takes about 1/4 second.
Once the icon vanishes from the desktop, its unmounted, and its safe.

Essentially if you cant see the drive anywhere or access it, its safe to
unplug it. Or wait till any activity ceases.

the software is smart enough to sync() the disk before unmounting it.

David W. Hodgins

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 5:38:35 PM8/24/09
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:55:10 -0400, jaylinux53 <jayli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
> Nautilus side pane ?

Yes.

> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,

Windows turns off the power, as well as umounting the filesystem,
which means you must remove/reinsert the device, before you can see
it again.

With kde3, for a device assigned to sdc1, you could use
$ kio_media_mounthelper -m media:/sdc1 # mount
$ kio_media_mounthelper -u media:/sdc1 # umount
$ kio_media_mounthelper -s media:/sdc1 # stop (aka umount and poweroff)

This doesn't work in kde4. I'm not sure what commands that would
be equivalent to.

Anyway, you don't need to power off the device, before removing it.
Just umounting the filesystem will ensure the filesystem has been
synced.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 6:53:45 PM8/24/09
to
David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:55:10 -0400, jaylinux53 <jayli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
>> Nautilus side pane ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
>
> Windows turns off the power, as well as umounting the filesystem,
> which means you must remove/reinsert the device, before you can see
> it again.
>
> With kde3, for a device assigned to sdc1, you could use
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -m media:/sdc1 # mount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -u media:/sdc1 # umount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -s media:/sdc1 # stop (aka umount and poweroff)
>
> This doesn't work in kde4. I'm not sure what commands that would
> be equivalent to.
>
> Anyway, you don't need to power off the device, before removing it.
> Just umounting the filesystem will ensure the filesystem has been
> synced.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>

This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.

A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't understand
a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of the others.

"Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in use because
it works.

Various corporations have poured tens of millions of dollars into the
Linux GDEs in order to keep Linux runners from learning Linux and thus
making them dependent on their technocrats and technical support drones.

Having a variety of GDEs accelerates the dumbing down and
fragmentation processes by making it difficult or impossible for
Linux runners to communicate with each other.

The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all
Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
operating system, but a common language that facilitates
cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.

The coporations intend to make their money back, with a lot of
interest,by feasting on the corpse of linux.

The corporate-controlled technocrats at the major distros and
the GDEs want you to believe that only 'gurus' can use the
shell interface, and this simply isn't true. You only need to
understand the basics of how Linux works, and the basics of how
the shell works.

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://linuxreviews.org/beginner/abs-guide/en/
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~okeefe/p2b
for:
From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO
Building a Minimal Linux System from Source Code


Sid

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 9:41:51 PM8/24/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 00:53, a mentally disturbed character
identifying as *Sidney Lambe* hijacked yet another thread
in /comp.os.linux.hardware/ for his private little crusade,
added /comp.os.linux.setup/ to the list of crossposted groups and then
babbled...:

[Follow-up set to the two originally addressed groups]

> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
> turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
> languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.

Nonsense. The problem at hand was one of personal confusion and has
nothing to do with GDEs.

> A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't understand
> a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of the others.

They can understand eachother a lot better than a Bourne Shell user, a C
Shell user and a Korn Shell user.

> "Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in use
> because it works.

This is the FOSS community, not Microsoft. Somehow the difference
between the two eludes you.

> Various corporations have poured tens of millions of dollars into the

> Linux GDEs [...

Sources, names, dates and amounts of money, please?

> ...] in order to keep Linux runners from learning Linux and thus

> making them dependent on their technocrats and technical support
> drones.

Nonsense.

> Having a variety of GDEs accelerates the dumbing down and
> fragmentation processes by making it difficult or impossible for
> Linux runners to communicate with each other.

Nonsense.

> The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all
> Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
> operating system, but a common language that facilitates
> cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.

What common language? Bourne Shell? C? Korn Shell? Z Shell? Perl?
Lisp?

> The coporations intend to make their money back, with a lot of
> interest,by feasting on the corpse of linux.

Nonsense.

> The corporate-controlled technocrats at the major distros and
> the GDEs want you to believe that only 'gurus' can use the
> shell interface, and this simply isn't true.

Nonsense. They'd be shooting themselves in the commercial foot. They
simply wish for GNU/Linux to become wider used and that they can then
benefit (financially) from its more widespread adoption. This is why
there are GDEs to help the non-technocrats use computers for things
that don't have to anything to do with IT or system administration
itself, like scientific research, office work, audio and graphics
processing, et al.

<snip the repetitive flurry of links>

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 9:52:37 PM8/24/09
to
Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

I see "Aragorn" has dropped by.

The fellow who can't tell the difference between a GDE like kde,
a massive suite of graphcal applications, utilities, and libs
with 100,000+ files that runs in a window manager, and a window
manager with about 50 files.

I see no point in reading his article.

[delete]

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 10:01:53 PM8/24/09
to
Aragorn wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 00:53, a mentally disturbed character
> identifying as *Sidney Lambe* hijacked yet another thread
> in /comp.os.linux.hardware/ for his private little crusade,
> added /comp.os.linux.setup/ to the list of crossposted groups and then
> babbled...:
>
C'mon Aragorn: Are you the last person to killfile 'Hissing Sid'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRNdqtpZHHQ

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 10:12:45 PM8/24/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 03:52, someone identifying as *Sidney Lambe*
wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

> I see "Aragorn" has dropped by.
>
> The fellow who can't tell the difference between a GDE like kde,
> a massive suite of graphcal applications, utilities, and libs
> with 100,000+ files that runs in a window manager, and a window
> manager with about 50 files.

I can tell the difference very well, but I'm also aware of how blurry
the line gets with certain window manager projects.

> I see no point in reading his article.

That's right, Sid. You post drivel, but you can't show anyone the
courtesy of reading their well-founded rebuttal of your paranoid
delusions, no matter how politely or serenely that rebuttal is put.

You force people to read your digital lunacy while depriving them of the
right to reply, and in addition you can't seem to defend your points
and thus you resort to flurries of ad hominem attacks. In my book
that's called bullying.

And by the way, people who *have* read and *do* read my articles are
generally grateful for the insights I offer. That is why I am here. I
never came to Usenet for asking advice, but from day one I subscribed
to Usenet so as to be able to *give* advice and share my knowledge with
others.

Perhaps if you *were* to read my articles, you would not be so clueless
as you are coming across now.

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 10:16:47 PM8/24/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:01, someone identifying as *The Natural
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

I had already killfiled him, but he was the only person in my killfile,
and after my system here had crashed - the hardware is dying - and the
subsequent /reiserfs/ journal playback, the killfilter was there but
ineffective. So I've removed it and decided to give Sid one more
chance at a decent reply from me. Which he didn't read. Or so he
says. ;-)

It's no use anyway. If we all decide to killfile him, the he'll still
be posting his drivel, under the impression that he is an important
person with an equally important message. He *is* that narcissistic.
<grin>

Dan C

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 10:43:41 PM8/24/09
to

No, he would still be just as clueless, as he is incapable of learning.

Also, it's not just that he's "coming across" that way, he really *is*
hardcore stupid, right to the bone. ;)


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.

Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 10:49:49 PM8/24/09
to
I wonder why he removed cols from the Newsgroups header before
replying here and not the others.

Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:01, someone identifying as *The Natural
> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 00:53, a mentally disturbed character
>>> identifying as *Sidney Lambe* hijacked yet another thread
>>> in /comp.os.linux.hardware/ for his private little crusade,
>>> added /comp.os.linux.setup/ to the list of crossposted groups and
>>> then babbled...:
>>>
>> C'mon Aragorn: Are you the last person to killfile 'Hissing Sid'?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRNdqtpZHHQ
>
> I had already killfiled him, but he was the only person in my killfile,
> and after my system here had crashed - the hardware is dying - and the
> subsequent /reiserfs/ journal playback, the killfilter was there but
> ineffective. So I've removed it and decided to give Sid one more
> chance at a decent reply from me. Which he didn't read. Or so he
> says. ;-)

I didn't read it and didn't miss a thing.

>
> It's no use anyway. If we all decide to killfile him, the he'll still
> be posting his drivel,

If it was "drivel" then killfiling would be the obvious thing to do.

Because it isn't drivel at all, and you don't want people saying
no to GDEs and learning the shell interface (learning Linux instead
of a GDE), you can't killfile me but have to try to convince people
that I'm a nutjob.

This is how people who want to suppress free speech concerning
ideas they don't like operate: They attack the character of the
person bringing up the ideas rather than debating the ideas.

You are being very dishonest.

> under the impression that he is an important
> person with an equally important message. He *is* that narcissistic.
><grin>

I have never said I was important, but this message is important.

Judging from your other posts, you simply don't know enough about
Linux to understand just how immportant it is.

The Windows-clone GDEs have worked very well in your case. You
understand one of the GDEs, you don't understand Linux.

I'm here, asshole. Nothing you can do about it. You can snipe at
me like the loser trolls from now until forever. Won't slow me
down a bit. I'm used to it.

Assholes like you and "Nathan" and "The Natural Philosopher" (who
only killfiled me, if he even has, after he finally figured out
I really wasn't reading his bitchy articles) are just a part of
life on the Usenet.

You are harmless. People see your malice and dishonesty.

Sid

Michael Black

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 11:07:33 PM8/24/09
to
On Mon, 25 Aug 2009, Sidney Lambe wrote:

> I wonder why he removed cols from the Newsgroups header before
> replying here and not the others.
>

Because the post you replied to was only posted to
comp.os.linux.hardware
comp.os.linux.misc

He deliberately reset to the original newsgroups because you constantly
add extra newsgroups.

Michael

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 11:28:22 PM8/24/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:43, someone identifying as *Dan C* wrote
in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:12:45 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 03:52, someone identifying as *Sidney
>> Lambe* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/
>>
>>> I see "Aragorn" has dropped by.
>>>

>>> [...]


>>> I see no point in reading his article.
>>
>> That's right, Sid. You post drivel, but you can't show anyone the
>> courtesy of reading their well-founded rebuttal of your paranoid
>> delusions, no matter how politely or serenely that rebuttal is put.
>>

>> [...]


>> And by the way, people who *have* read and *do* read my articles are
>> generally grateful for the insights I offer. That is why I am here.
>> I never came to Usenet for asking advice, but from day one I
>> subscribed to Usenet so as to be able to *give* advice and share my
>> knowledge with others.
>>
>> Perhaps if you *were* to read my articles, you would not be so
>> clueless as you are coming across now.
>
> No, he would still be just as clueless, as he is incapable of
> learning.

Reminds me of a certain obessive-compulsive character from the West
Coast somewhere... I suppose I don't have to add the words "Remember
him?" as you're probably still trying just as hard to forget about him
as the rest of us... :p

(Shh, let's not waking up any sleeping dogs... For all we know he might
be lurking. But on the other hand, I don't think he is, or else he
would have popped into the thread already, given that he's never walked
out on a good flamefest before. :pp)

> Also, it's not just that he's "coming across" that way, he really *is*
> hardcore stupid, right to the bone. ;)

Well, considering that he manages to mis-learn everything due to his
total alienation from the facts and that he pretends like he's the next
Albert Einstein, that would be a correct assessment, but I was trying
to remain somewhat courteous. :pp

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 24, 2009, 11:56:40 PM8/24/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:49, someone identifying as *Sidney Lambe*
wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

> I wonder why he removed cols from the Newsgroups header before


> replying here and not the others.

I didn't remove anything. I use KNode, which is unfortunately trying to
be politically correct and which always adds a follow-up if the thread
is posted. I have not removed that follow-up - which was set
to /comp.os.linux.hardware/ - but simply added /comp.os.linux.misc/ to
the follow-up as well.

You on the other hand added /comp.os.linux.setup/ to the crosspost list,
while that group had nothing to do with the original thread and while
both the original thread and your rant against GDEs are off-topic for
that group.

> Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:01, someone identifying as *The Natural
>> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/
>>

>>> C'mon Aragorn: Are you the last person to killfile 'Hissing Sid'?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRNdqtpZHHQ
>>
>> I had already killfiled him, but he was the only person in my
>> killfile, and after my system here had crashed - the hardware is
>> dying - and the subsequent /reiserfs/ journal playback, the
>> killfilter was there but ineffective. So I've removed it and decided
>> to give Sid one more chance at a decent reply from me. Which he
>> didn't read. Or so he says. ;-)
>
> I didn't read it and didn't miss a thing.

Perhaps not in your bloated ego book, but nobody here can deny that I
was being courteous towards you.

>> It's no use anyway. If we all decide to killfile him, the he'll
>> still be posting his drivel,
>
> If it was "drivel" then killfiling would be the obvious thing to do.

Which I had done earlier - see the quoted paragraph - but that isn't
going to stop you from spreading false conspiracy rumors as facts which
can and do mislead the newbies.

> Because it isn't drivel at all, [...

Yes it is, and repeating it ad nauseam won't make it any different.

> ...] and you don't want people saying no to GDEs and learning the
> shell interface (learning Linux instead of a GDE), [...

First of all, that's a non-sequitur, because "learning Linux instead of
a GDE" is saying that everyone who uses a computer should study the
kernel instead of doing what they are paid to do by their employer, or
instead of getting anything productive done while at the computer.

Linux is a kernel, get it? It's not an entire operating system. And as
for the entire operating system itself, there are *many* different
interactive commandline shells - as I have already explained to you -
and they are *far* *more* *different* from eachother than the various
GDEs.

Secondly, I would be the last person to discourage use of a commandline
shell. In fact, I cringe everytime someone posts a question that has
to do with pure "point & click" stuff when the solution to their
problem is very easy if they were only to open up a terminal emulator
window or read the effing documentation or /man/ pages.

Yet these people are not being dumbed down by the various GDEs that
exist for UNIX-style operating systems. They have already *been*
dumbed down by years of exposure to Microsoft Windows, which hides a
*lot* more of the underlying system from the user and which totally
misrepresents what a computer is and what it is capable of to the user.

But that is Microsoft's contribution. That has nothing to do with the
KDE or Gnome developers.

> ...] you can't killfile me [...

Sure I can, and I already have, but considering the journal playback on
my hard disk which rendered the killfilter ineffective and considering
that you were the only one in there, I decided to delete the filter
altogether - it would have worked again had I simply clicked "Apply" -
and give you a chance at a fair and serene rebuttal. One that you so
unfairly and unserenely dismissed, I might add.

> ...] but have to try to convince people that I'm a nutjob.

I don't have to try and convince anyone of that, Sidney. Everyone
already knows that, since you happen to be very convincing on your own
accord.

> This is how people who want to suppress free speech concerning

> ideas they don't like operate: [...

I do not suppress free speech. I try to rectify misconceptions, and
that is all I've been trying to do with regard to you, totally unlike
your ad hominem attacks on myself and others and your total dismissal
of any sane argumentation, while at the same time you still remain
endebted to us with regard to the evidence for the absurd claims you
are making.

> ...] They attack the character of the person bringing up the ideas


> rather than debating the ideas.

Projection, Sidney. That is not what I am doing; it is what *you* are
doing.

Besides, how can there be a debate when you won't even hear the other
person out? You post your false claims and then you refuse to read the
replies to them which deal with the matter at hand.

It is even bizarre that you do seem to read replies that *do* contain ad
hominem attacks on you while you discard those that are trying to
debate with you in a civilized manner. And *that* is why you are a
troll, Sidney.

> You are being very dishonest.

Look who's talking!

>> under the impression that he is an important person with an equally
>> important message. He *is* that narcissistic. <grin>
>
> I have never said I was important, but this message is important.

No, you haven't said that you were important, but you conduct yourself
in a manner that subliminally proclaims your (self-)importance by only
reading flamebait replies instead of the replies that try to conduct an
honest debate with what you have to say on the subject of commandline
shells, GDEs or whatever.

> Judging from your other posts, you simply don't know enough about
> Linux to understand just how immportant it is.

I have never pretended that I was an IT guru. I do have a partial IT
education at the College level, yes, and I am self-taught in just about
everything I do, although I do not brag about that as that would be
totally irrelevant.

How one's knowledge was acquired is totally irrelevant with regard to
what one actually does with it.

> The Windows-clone GDEs have worked very well in your case. You
> understand one of the GDEs, you don't understand Linux.

I think I understand GNU/Linux and UNIX in general a lot better than
you, Sidney. Among other things, that is why I do my daily work while
logged in as an unprivileged user, instead of from within the root
account.

> I'm here, asshole.

Ad hominem.

> Nothing you can do about it. You can snipe at me like the loser trolls
> from now until forever. Won't slow me down a bit. I'm used to it.

If you're used to it, then perhaps you should stop and wonder how that
came to be. Here's a hint: It might actually have something to do with
the way you conduct yourself.

> Assholes like you and "Nathan" and "The Natural Philosopher" (who
> only killfiled me, if he even has, after he finally figured out
> I really wasn't reading his bitchy articles) are just a part of
> life on the Usenet.

As are netkooks and trolls, I suppose.

> You are harmless.

It has never been my aim to harm.

> People see your malice and dishonesty.

There is neither malice nor dishonesty within me, Sidney. Anyone who
knows me - whether they know me vaguely or whether they know me very
well - can vouch for that.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 2:06:29 AM8/25/09
to
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

[delete an attempt to change the subject from GDEs to me]

Newgroups he removed from the Newsgroup header without noting the
fact reinstated.

I'll simply repost my original response here:

David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:55:10 -0400, jaylinux53 <jayli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
>> Nautilus side pane ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
>
> Windows turns off the power, as well as umounting the filesystem,
> which means you must remove/reinsert the device, before you can see
> it again.
>
> With kde3, for a device assigned to sdc1, you could use
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -m media:/sdc1 # mount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -u media:/sdc1 # umount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -s media:/sdc1 # stop (aka umount and poweroff)
>
> This doesn't work in kde4. I'm not sure what commands that would
> be equivalent to.
>
> Anyway, you don't need to power off the device, before removing it.
> Just umounting the filesystem will ensure the filesystem has been
> synced.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>

This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)


turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.

A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't understand


a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of the others.

"Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in use because
it works.

Various corporations have poured tens of millions of dollars into the
Linux GDEs in order to keep Linux runners from learning Linux and thus



Various corporations have poured tens of millions of dollars into the

Linux GDEs in order to keep Linux runners from learning Linux and thus


making them dependent on their technocrats and technical support drones.

Having a variety of GDEs accelerates the dumbing down and


fragmentation processes by making it difficult or impossible for
Linux runners to communicate with each other.

The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all


Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
operating system, but a common language that facilitates
cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.

The coporations intend to make their money back, with a lot of


interest,by feasting on the corpse of linux.

The corporate-controlled technocrats at the major distros and


the GDEs want you to believe that only 'gurus' can use the

shell interface, and this simply isn't true. You only need to
understand the basics of how Linux works, and the basics of how
the shell works.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 2:34:35 AM8/25/09
to
Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

[delete another off-topic personal attack]

Subject and Newsgroups reinstated.

This is my original response here, what this fellow doesn't want
you to think about:

David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:55:10 -0400, jaylinux53 <jayli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it safe to remove the external HD by clicking on 'Unmount' in the
>> Nautilus side pane ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> After clicking 'Unmount', the orange light on the ext HD still glows,
>
> Windows turns off the power, as well as umounting the filesystem,
> which means you must remove/reinsert the device, before you can see
> it again.
>
> With kde3, for a device assigned to sdc1, you could use
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -m media:/sdc1 # mount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -u media:/sdc1 # umount
> $ kio_media_mounthelper -s media:/sdc1 # stop (aka umount and poweroff)
>
> This doesn't work in kde4. I'm not sure what commands that would
> be equivalent to.
>
> Anyway, you don't need to power off the device, before removing it.
> Just umounting the filesystem will ensure the filesystem has been
> synced.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>

This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)


turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.

A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't understand


a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of the others.

"Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in use because
it works.

Various corporations have poured tens of millions of dollars into the
Linux GDEs in order to keep Linux runners from learning Linux and thus



making them dependent on their technocrats and technical support drones.

Having a variety of GDEs accelerates the dumbing down and


fragmentation processes by making it difficult or impossible for
Linux runners to communicate with each other.

The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all


Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
operating system, but a common language that facilitates
cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.

The coporations intend to make their money back, with a lot of


interest,by feasting on the corpse of linux.

The corporate-controlled technocrats at the major distros and


the GDEs want you to believe that only 'gurus' can use the

shell interface, and this simply isn't true. You only need to
understand the basics of how Linux works, and the basics of how
the shell works.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:21:54 AM8/25/09
to
Aragorn wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:01, someone identifying as *The Natural
> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 25 August 2009 00:53, a mentally disturbed character
>>> identifying as *Sidney Lambe* hijacked yet another thread
>>> in /comp.os.linux.hardware/ for his private little crusade,
>>> added /comp.os.linux.setup/ to the list of crossposted groups and
>>> then babbled...:
>>>
>> C'mon Aragorn: Are you the last person to killfile 'Hissing Sid'?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRNdqtpZHHQ
>
> I had already killfiled him, but he was the only person in my killfile,
> and after my system here had crashed - the hardware is dying - and the
> subsequent /reiserfs/ journal playback, the killfilter was there but
> ineffective. So I've removed it and decided to give Sid one more
> chance at a decent reply from me. Which he didn't read. Or so he
> says. ;-)
>
> It's no use anyway. If we all decide to killfile him, the he'll still
> be posting his drivel, under the impression that he is an important
> person with an equally important message. He *is* that narcissistic.
> <grin>
>
Ah, but in our own private narcissism, we simply won't see his.

This Makes a Difference.

cat sid > /dev/null

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:23:04 AM8/25/09
to
Just because you are paranoid, Sid, doesn't mean we aren't out to get
you..:-)

My other name is Bond, James Bond..

Nico Kadel-Garcia

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 8:15:47 AM8/25/09
to
Aragorn, while you're bothering to rebut Sidney's ranting, the effect
is to continue the drivel in comp.os.linux.setup, which is usually a
place for newbies to get helpful answers and doesn't need these.
Please leave this group out of the followups.

And Sidney? Find something else as a hobby. Whether you are going to
waste your time responding to postings you somehow haven't read but
reply to anyway, or what, you're spending an awful lot of time filling
a newsgroup where the material isn't relevant. Leave the followups in
the discussion groups, not comp.os.linux.setup and similarly focused
groups.

Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 12:03:03 PM8/25/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
> turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
> languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.

You fucking moron, enough with the random replies about conspiracy
theories. Nothing this user asked had anything to do with GDE's and
everyone suggested they drop into a shell and run simple commands. You
fail, again.

Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 12:05:34 PM8/25/09
to
Michael Black wrote:

He does that, because he thinks he's important and everyone wants to
seewhat he says. Then all he does is re-post his same copy and pasted
conspiracy theory. I wish he'd just cut his wrists.

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 12:14:58 PM8/25/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 14:15, someone identifying as *Nico
Kadel-Garcia* wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

> Aragorn, while you're bothering to rebut Sidney's ranting, the effect
> is to continue the drivel in comp.os.linux.setup, which is usually a
> place for newbies to get helpful answers and doesn't need these.
> Please leave this group out of the followups.

I have. I have not changed the list of crossposted groups in either
reply but simply added /comp.os.linux.misc/ to the follow-ups. It's
Sid who keeps on readding the group.

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 12:16:49 PM8/25/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 11:21, someone identifying as *The Natural

I would suggest...

mv Sid > /dev/null

... instead. ;-)

Darren Salt

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 12:47:38 PM8/25/09
to
I demand that Aragorn may or may not have written...

[snip]


> I had already killfiled him, but he was the only person in my killfile, and
> after my system here had crashed - the hardware is dying - and the
> subsequent /reiserfs/ journal playback, the killfilter was there but
> ineffective. So I've removed it and decided to give Sid one more chance at
> a decent reply from me. Which he didn't read. Or so he says. ;-)

He has it read to him. Didn't you know?

;-)

--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Output *more* particulate pollutants. BUFFER AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.

A shortcut is the longest path between two points.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:14:24 PM8/25/09
to
Stan Bischof <st...@newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
>> turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
>> languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.
>>
>> The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all
>> Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
>> operating system, but a common language that facilitates
>> cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.
>>
>
> I know I shouldn't but this is just too easy.
>
> so-- exactly WHICH shell has been learned by all "linux runners"?
>
> Bourne, c, k, bash, pdk, tc, ... ?

For a long time, bash has been the most common, even among the
pure unixes.

Duh.

But it doesn't really matter. The apps and utilities being
called by the shells are the same, and the popular shells aren't
that different from each other. They all have the same basic
'functions' and syntax.

Duh.

> And since nobody can do all that's needed in shell, one needs
> scripting or compiled code at some point, so exactly which
> particular language is common to all: C, Fortran, perl, java,
> C++, C#, Pascal, python, ... ?
>
> Stan

<cuckoo -- cuckoo -- cuckoo>

I knew from the cheap shot this article started out with, that
this would be a stupid article, and it is.

Where this idiot got the idea that I was talking about a Linux
OS with only shell scripts on it, I cannot imagine.

Stan, myself and many others, including John Hasler, run Linux
from the command line, the shell interface. We have a GUI but
no GDE, and we can run any application you can with your
Windows-clone, GDE interface.

The GDE addicts and the technocrats that prey on them are truly
desperate to suppress any criticism.

And you can see above just how effective they are in dumbing down
the Linux population.

Sid


Message has been deleted

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:34:52 PM8/25/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop
>> Environments) turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where
>> everyone speaks different languages and therefore can't
>> communicate well with each other.
>>
>> A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't
>> understand a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of
>> the others.
>

> Eh? Wot? I've used Gnome, KDE3, KDE4 and XFCE. And TWM and FVWM
> as well, come to think of it. There's a bit of a speed bump at
> the start, but the basic principles are there for all of them.

I could do the same thing. But that's because I understand Linux,
which you obviously do too.

I'd be willing to bet that you can run Linux from the commandline,
like I do.

But the average user who has never used anything but a GDE
can't _because_ he doesn't understand the underlying OS.
And he doesn't understand the underlying OS _because_ he's
never used anything but Windows-clone GDEs.

Put a bash prompt in front of them and they can't do anything
but stare at it.

Just read the posts on these groups and you'll see that KDE
users help KDE users and Gnome users help Gnome users, because
they don't understand each other.

This is one of the main reasons these Linux groups are dying.

>> "Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in
>> use because it works.
>

> I look at it as a set of nice, full-featured UIs for big,
> powerful machines, and some stripped-down ones for those either
> without the resources or who prefer not to use them on pretty
> graphics.

You can believe in little grey men in spaceships if you want to.

But the fact is that the corporate-financed GDEs are destroying
Linux, which is why they are financing them.

1. They divorce the user from the Linux operating system. He/she
learns to use KDE or Gnome, not Linux.

2. Because there are a variety of GDEs available, with different
default configurations and installs for each distro, it is becoming
harder and harder for Linux runners to communicate with each other
and help each other out.

3. They make the Linux OS more difficult to manage and more unstable
and insecure by increasing its complexity and size. If I
were to do a full install of KDE I'd be adding about 118,000 files
to my hard drive and quadrupling the size of my OS.

Why? I can run any application a KDE user can.

Sid


Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:36:48 PM8/25/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> Stan Bischof <st...@newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
>>> turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
>>> languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.
>>>
>>> The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all
>>> Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
>>> operating system, but a common language that facilitates
>>> cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> I know I shouldn't but this is just too easy.
>>
>> so-- exactly WHICH shell has been learned by all "linux runners"?
>>
>> Bourne, c, k, bash, pdk, tc, ... ?
>
> For a long time, bash has been the most common, even among the
> pure unixes.
>
> Duh.

There is no "Duh" involved, just because you don't like GUI's doesn't
change anything.

> But it doesn't really matter. The apps and utilities being
> called by the shells are the same, and the popular shells aren't
> that different from each other. They all have the same basic
> 'functions' and syntax.
>
> Duh.

Moron, think about what you're saying. What DIFFERENCE does it make if
someone launches an app from any shell environment, or from a GDE?

>> And since nobody can do all that's needed in shell, one needs
>> scripting or compiled code at some point, so exactly which
>> particular language is common to all: C, Fortran, perl, java,
>> C++, C#, Pascal, python, ... ?
>>
>> Stan
>
> <cuckoo -- cuckoo -- cuckoo>

You think you're funny or smart?

> I knew from the cheap shot this article started out with, that
> this would be a stupid article, and it is.

Why did you feel this need to once again change the subject line and
topic to go on another anti-GUI rant? Everyone suggested going into
shell and using umount, so what does it relate to your GUI fear anyway?
YOU made this into a stupid article, and once again try and dance
around the topic you started when you're shown to be a clueless idiot
when it comes to Linux. Not a single person ever agrees with you about
your conspiracy claims about Linux and GUIs, so move onto another
topic.

> Where this idiot got the idea that I was talking about a Linux
> OS with only shell scripts on it, I cannot imagine.

Because you go on and on and on and on about how anyone that runs a GUI
is a fraud and that they aren't really learning Linux if they use a GDE
(even though they can easily still do everything they want in the CLI).
You are just clueless enough to think it makes you sound cool,
interesting or smart to do things the hard way (for some people), yet
you don't know how to do those things anyway. Pathetic.

> Stan, myself and many others, including John Hasler, run Linux
> from the command line, the shell interface.

So do I and many others. But, sometimes people use a GUI and it doesn't
mean a thing. After all, you know nothing of Linux regardless of your
claims to only use the CLI.

> We have a GUI but
> no GDE,

So fuckin' what!?

> and we can run any application you can with your
> Windows-clone, GDE interface.

Enough with the Windows-clone claim. GDE's were started and used a long
time before Windows ripped off the idea. And, who said you couldn't
run any app from the CLI? Why in the world do you care what
environment someone launches an app from? If you don't want or need
it, don't use it. It's simple. However, you've already proven you
don't use a GDE because you think it's "too hard to learn" and you
claim that it prevents people from learning Linux (as if there's a lot
to learn with a GDE, give me a break! And as if it prevents or deters
anyone from using the CLI or anything else). If any Linux user is
serious, they'll be using the CLI as well, and they do.

> The GDE addicts and the technocrats that prey on them are truly
> desperate to suppress any criticism.

I don't believe anyone's ever defending a GDE, they simply dispute your
lunatic, clueless rants about it that are untrue. Just because someone
uses a GDE doesn't mean they are "addicted" to it. I use a GDE (KDE,
used to be Gnome) and launch apps from it often (web browser, email,
usenet, etc.), but most stuff I do all day long is in shell/cli. You
just can't deal with that. You are pathetic. You should cut your
wrists.

> And you can see above just how effective they are in dumbing down
> the Linux population.
>
> Sid

By all accounts, one could claim that since you're so dumb about
everything related to Linux, that the CLI dumbs you down. Of course,
the people with a clue know better than to make that claim, you just
happen to be dumb and can't grasp the GDE or CLI.

Aragorn

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:37:37 PM8/25/09
to
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 23:14, someone identifying as *Sidney Lambe*
wrote in /comp.os.linux.hardware:/

[Additional /comp.os.linux.setup/ crosspost by Sidney removed again]

> Stan Bischof <st...@newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop Environments)
>>> turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where everyone speaks different
>>> languages and therefore can't communicate well with each other.
>>>
>>> The shell interface has, until recently, been learned by all
>>> Linux runners, giving them not only control of their own
>>> operating system, but a common language that facilitates
>>> cooperation and the exchange of knowledge.
>>
>> I know I shouldn't but this is just too easy.
>>
>> so-- exactly WHICH shell has been learned by all "linux runners"?
>>
>> Bourne, c, k, bash, pdk, tc, ... ?
>
> For a long time, bash has been the most common, even among the
> pure unixes.

Hogwash. Proprietary UNIXes used to come with a Bourne Shell and a C
Shell. The Bourne Shell was later on replaced by the Korn Shell in
SunOS/Solaris, and /bash/ is the GNU Bourne Again Shell, which came
much later and which has a Bourne Shell compatibility mode, but which
has its differences nevertheless.

> Duh.
>
> But it doesn't really matter. The apps and utilities being

> called by the shells are the same, [...

Yes, but the shell internals are quite different, and so is the
configuration of your environment.

> ...] and the popular shells aren't that different from each other.

Really? I think there is a substantial difference in the handling of
globbing characters between Bourne (Again) Shell and Korn Shell, and I
also think that Bourne (Again) Shell scripting and internals are quite
different from scripting in C Shell - which uses, surprise surprise,
the C programming language - not to mention setting up the environment.

> They all have the same basic 'functions' and syntax.

No, they don't.

> Duh.

Duh indeed.


>
>> And since nobody can do all that's needed in shell, one needs
>> scripting or compiled code at some point, so exactly which
>> particular language is common to all: C, Fortran, perl, java,
>> C++, C#, Pascal, python, ... ?
>

> <cuckoo -- cuckoo -- cuckoo>

That's an accurate description of your whole persona, Sidney. Spot on!
<evil grin>

> I knew from the cheap shot this article started out with, that
> this would be a stupid article, and it is.

The only one here taking cheap shots at people is you, Sidney. You
claim you're not reading their articles and then you claim that you
know what they were about. Non sequitur, anyone?

> Where this idiot got the idea that I was talking about a Linux
> OS with only shell scripts on it, I cannot imagine.

That is not what he was saying either.

> Stan, myself and many others, including John Hasler, run Linux
> from the command line, the shell interface. We have a GUI but
> no GDE, and we can run any application you can with your
> Windows-clone, GDE interface.

Not all GDEs are Windows clones, and in fact, it might just be Windows
itself that is trying to clone what was already available on UNIX long
before Microsoft ever "came up with it".

> The GDE addicts and the technocrats that prey on them are truly
> desperate to suppress any criticism.

The only one suppressing criticism here is you, Sidney. The minute
someone replies to you, you go "na na na na naaaa na, I'm not
listening".

> And you can see above just how effective they are in dumbing down
> the Linux population.

Then what was it exactly that had dumbed *you* down, Sidney? Had a
rough childhood? Dug into the bottle too deeply? Hung around at
Woodstock with a "J" between your lips for too long?

Come on, tell us, Sidney. Don't keep us in suspense. What was it
exactly that has damaged those braincells of yours so badly? Couldn't
have been a GDE, could it?

Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 5:52:15 PM8/25/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop
>>> Environments) turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where
>>> everyone speaks different languages and therefore can't
>>> communicate well with each other.
>>>
>>> A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't
>>> understand a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of
>>> the others.
>>
>> Eh? Wot? I've used Gnome, KDE3, KDE4 and XFCE. And TWM and FVWM
>> as well, come to think of it. There's a bit of a speed bump at
>> the start, but the basic principles are there for all of them.
>
> I could do the same thing. But that's because I understand Linux,
> which you obviously do too.

But you said yourself that you couldn't, you said you didn't understand
GDE's because you said they were too complex and took too long to
learn. Sadly, you didn't seem to learn the CLI either. Anyway, it
sure is nice for you to claim you understand Linux, but you don't (not
at all, not in the least, which is why every single person calls you on
your loony rants). And, why are you claiming this guy "understands
linux too"? You go on and on about how anyone that uses a GDE is not a
real Linux "runner". Make up your mind, idiot!

> I'd be willing to bet that you can run Linux from the commandline,
> like I do.

I'm willing to bet that most people can run Linux from the commandline.
You are a complete moron if you think that's the only way any "real"
Linux user should be using, all because of your unfounded, paranoid
rants you've decided to make up, all because you didn't "get it" when
you tried to use a GDE. Who the fuck isn't able to figure out a GDE,
because YOU, Sid!? Anyway, I bet he knows far more than you about
Linux, because you can't manage to run Linux from the CLI. Shouldn't
you just hate everything about Linux, seeing you can't figure out the
CLI OR a GDE?

> But the average user who has never used anything but a GDE
> can't _because_ he doesn't understand the underlying OS.

If they never break open the CLI/drop into shell, that is probably true.
But one doesn't have a thing to do with the other. Why do you have a
problem with Linux offering a way for non Linux skilled people (like
you, Sid) a method to make it simple, and still make all of the
options, control and power available to any of them, should they want
to learn more. Why is that a problem for you?

> And he doesn't understand the underlying OS _because_ he's
> never used anything but Windows-clone GDEs.

Windows ripped off Unix variants for the GDE, so you can stop with the
"Windows Clone" nonsense. You don't understand the simple GDE's
because they are too complex for you, so you think GDe's suck. GDE
users don't automatically think the CLI sucks because they might not
know it. I've never personally seen a GDE user that didn't use the
CLI, but that's not exactly what makes or means someone is skilled or
not anyway. Sadly, you don't understand the underlying OS either, and
you claim to USE the CLI.

> Put a bash prompt in front of them and they can't do anything
> but stare at it.

Having flashbacks of earlier today, Sid?

> Just read the posts on these groups and you'll see that KDE
> users help KDE users and Gnome users help Gnome users, because
> they don't understand each other.

Untrue, and most replies suggest solutions on the command line.
Besides, which group are you speaking of? All of the posts you
continue to intentionally cross post to 3 or 4 different groups,
because you constantly whine and want everyone to see it.

> This is one of the main reasons these Linux groups are dying.

Not at all, usenet itself has been dying over many years, this includes
any group about any topic. Also, because of idiot's like you turn
people off from the idea.

>>> "Divide and Conquer". A time-worn strategy that is still in
>>> use because it works.
>>
>> I look at it as a set of nice, full-featured UIs for big,
>> powerful machines, and some stripped-down ones for those either
>> without the resources or who prefer not to use them on pretty
>> graphics.
>
> You can believe in little grey men in spaceships if you want to.

Spoken like a true hypocrite!

> But the fact is that the corporate-financed GDEs are destroying
> Linux, which is why they are financing them.

Wrong, you are a paranoid, clueless lunatic (that is the only "fact").
The GDE's make it usable for more new users that want to get into it.
Thus, more people use it, the better it is for everyone. No one is
taking away any control, power or option for anyone. You can install
and run Linux however you wish, all of the source is still there,
nothing has changed. No one forces a GDE on you either. You have
unfounded, crazy and retarded claims that are untrue and unbalanced.

> 1. They divorce the user from the Linux operating system. He/she
> learns to use KDE or Gnome, not Linux.

Untrue. That is a choice if someone wants to use one or the other, or
both. It's been that way since Linux came out. Nothing has changed in
that regard.

> 2. Because there are a variety of GDEs available, with different
> default configurations and installs for each distro, it is becoming
> harder and harder for Linux runners to communicate with each other
> and help each other out.

Untrue, it's just harder for you, and you've previously admitted you
think the simple point-and-click, drag-and-drop, menu based GDE's are
too complex for you.

> 3. They make the Linux OS more difficult to manage and more unstable
> and insecure by increasing its complexity and size. If I
> were to do a full install of KDE I'd be adding about 118,000 files
> to my hard drive and quadrupling the size of my OS.

Untrue about being difficult to manage or being insecure. As for the
size, you fucking worthless pile of shit, it's been repeated and you
continue to avoid responding about it, and that is any time you install
a bunch of programs, you are going to have more files. If you choose a
full install, then you'll get a lot more files (and programs). If you
choose less, you get less. This is the same thing in CLI.

> Why? I can run any application a KDE user can.
>
> Sid

So? A KDE user can run any application you can. They also can use the
CLI if they want, or boot into runlevel 3, or whatever they want. They
can to everything YOU can do, and more, because they have everything
you do AND a GDE!

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 6:19:39 PM8/25/09
to

The basic (POSIX) globbing is the same. Both also have extended
globbing, which ksh has enabled by default, but in bash it must be
enabled.

> and I also think that Bourne (Again) Shell scripting and internals
> are quite different from scripting in C Shell - which uses, surprise
> surprise, the C programming language - not to mention setting up the
> environment.

No, csh does not use the C programming language. It has its own
language, which has some similarities with C, but which is not
recommended for scripting due to its many limitiations.

>
>> They all have the same basic 'functions' and syntax.
>
> No, they don't.

All the Bourne-type shells have the same basic syntax and builtin
commands.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

Keith Keller

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 6:40:30 PM8/25/09
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc; .hardware is not
really appropriate.]

On 2009-08-25, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
> Really? I think there is a substantial difference in the handling of
> globbing characters between Bourne (Again) Shell and Korn Shell, and I
> also think that Bourne (Again) Shell scripting and internals are quite
> different from scripting in C Shell - which uses, surprise surprise,
> the C programming language - not to mention setting up the environment.

All the shells above (and the others I know) are written in C. The
syntax for csh and tcsh are vaguely similar to C, but different enough
that you probably should not compare their syntax to C.

Since Chris mentioned the advice not to use csh, here's the document he
helped write:

http://www.grymoire.com/Unix/CshTop10.txt

I don't know how applicable these issues are to tcsh.

--keith


--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 7:29:43 PM8/25/09
to

I see now: Stan thinks I'm talking about becoming a shell programmer
when what I am _obviously_ talking about is using the shell as
a basic user interface, which is quite a different matter.

The shell interface only requires, as I have said often, a _basic_
understanding of the shell.

Command history, tab completion, wildcards, basic redirection, piping...

Sid


Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 8:30:23 PM8/25/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> The shell interface only requires, as I have said often, a _basic_
> understanding of the shell.
>
> Command history, tab completion, wildcards, basic redirection,
> piping...
>
> Sid

All of those basic things Sid knows a very limited (to nothing) about,
ironically.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 3:30:09 AM8/26/09
to

He got a book on bash to impress his girlfriend, but she dumped him.

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 11:39:13 AM8/26/09
to
> I see now: Stan thinks I'm talking about becoming a shell programmer
> when what I am _obviously_ talking about is using the shell as
> a basic user interface, which is quite a different matter.
>
> The shell interface only requires, as I have said often, a _basic_
> understanding of the shell.
>
> Command history, tab completion, wildcards, basic redirection, piping...

...variables and parameters, looping, branching, quoting...

Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 12:25:11 PM8/26/09
to
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> ...variables and parameters, looping, branching, quoting...

and snipping. :-)

Message has been deleted

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 3:06:23 PM8/26/09
to

Not necessary to use the shell as an interface, except quoting.

But definitely extremely useful and naturally picked up by
the newbies as they progress. I'd also add aliases and simple
functions for the same purpose (renaming short command scripts)
to the list.

I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
just gives commands shorter names. Like:


li ()
{
/usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@"
}


-------------------------------------------------------------
* For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide configuration
file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To "source", a command,
means to include the file. To read it. This is in my /etc/profile:

source /etc/functions

A function is basically just a script that's given a higher
priority by the shell. There's more to it than that, but I'm
not clear on just what.

The object of functions like this is to save time typing. The
"@" means to include any added arguments at the prompt, like
a URL I've pasted in.

I have a function, "fun" that displays all the function names
and jobs from that file in a neat list. In case I forget.
----------------------------------------------------------------


Any command at the prompt is a shell script, really. So moving
on to more complex scripts is just natural.


>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
> A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
> 2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

Sure appreciate your input here,


Sid

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 5:02:18 PM8/26/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>
>
>> Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is what I mean about the GDEs (Graphical Desktop
>>>> Environments) turning Linux into a Tower of Babel where
>>>> everyone speaks different languages and therefore can't
>>>> communicate well with each other.
>>>>
>>>> A Gnome user can't understand a KDE user. A KDE3 user can't
>>>> understand a KDE4 user. An Xfce user can't understand any of
>>>> the others.
>>>
>>> Eh? Wot? I've used Gnome, KDE3, KDE4 and XFCE. And TWM and
>>> FVWM as well, come to think of it. There's a bit of a speed
>>> bump at the start, but the basic principles are there for all
>>> of them.
>>
>> I could do the same thing. But that's because I understand
>> Linux, which you obviously do too.
>>
>> I'd be willing to bet that you can run Linux from the
>> commandline, like I do.
>

> I was using computers when there was only a command line.

I envy you.

(And figured you were a 'pro'.)

> Some even had a character terminal.

What's that?

> Fortunately I missed the delights of punched tape and cards.
> I've currently got nine Konsole windows/tabs open because I'm
> lazy and tend to open a new one rather than re-use one I've got
> pointing to a particular directory/project.

"Konsole" <snicker>. It's just an effing x-term.

I use screen to run Linux from and have 7 windows open at the
moment, some running bash for root and normal users, and some
running other apps. Like tethereal on eth1 so I can see my
Internet traffic.

The only x-apps I'm using at the moment, besides ratpoison
for a window manager, are xpdf and firefox. I don't even
have X running most of the time.

Sid


Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 5:41:14 PM8/26/09
to

There's never a need for aliases. Always use functions.

> I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
> just gives commands shorter names. Like:

I would NEVER source functions in /etc/profile.


> li ()
> {
> /usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@"
> }
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> * For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide configuration
> file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To "source", a command,
> means to include the file. To read it. This is in my /etc/profile:
>
> source /etc/functions

That belongs in ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bashrc of users who want it.

> A function is basically just a script that's given a higher
> priority by the shell. There's more to it than that, but I'm
> not clear on just what.

A function is a script that is stored in memory. Its variables are
common to the calling script.

> The object of functions like this is to save time typing. The
> "@" means to include any added arguments at the prompt, like
> a URL I've pasted in.

That's one object of functions. More often they are used to
encapsulate frequently used code and to structure large programs.

> I have a function, "fun" that displays all the function names
> and jobs from that file in a neat list. In case I forget.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Any command at the prompt is a shell script, really. So moving
> on to more complex scripts is just natural.

True.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 8:48:28 PM8/26/09
to

Why not? It's no different than having them in the file itself,
is it?

>> li () { /usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@" }
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> * For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide
>> configuration file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To
>> "source", a command, means to include the file. To read it.
>> This is in my /etc/profile:
>>
>> source /etc/functions
>
> That belongs in ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bashrc of users who
> want it.

In this case I want them to be available to all users, including
root, and that's what systemwide rc files are for, in part. So
you don't have to mess with a bunch of individual files/users.

>> A function is basically just a script that's given a higher
>> priority by the shell. There's more to it than that, but I'm
>> not clear on just what.
>
> A function is a script that is stored in memory. Its
> variables are common to the calling script.

Thanks.

>> The object of functions like this is to save time typing. The
>> "@" means to include any added arguments at the prompt, like a
>> URL I've pasted in.
>
> That's one object of functions. More often they are used
> to encapsulate frequently used code and to structure large
> programs.
>
>> I have a function, "fun" that displays all the function names
>> and jobs from that file in a neat list. In case I forget.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>>
>> Any command at the prompt is a shell script, really. So moving
>> on to more complex scripts is just natural.
>
> True.


>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
> A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
> 2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence


Sid

Nico Kadel-Garcia

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:11:27 PM8/26/09
to
On Aug 26, 8:48 pm, Sidney Lambe <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-08-26, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
> >> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2009-08-25, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
> >>>> Sidney Lambe <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> >>>>> Stan Bischof <s...@newserve.worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Sidney Lambe

No, it's what /etc/profiles.d/ is for. That prevents manual editing
for specific feature sets of a shared configuration files, such /etc/
rc or /etc/rc.local or /etc/profile, and having to pick and choose
among them and having to *clean up after yourself* when you delete the
utility that need the funky alias, or JAVA_HOME (which is my recent
bugaboo), or ANT_HOME, or 'rm' alias, or EDITOR for Subversion use,
etc., etc., etc.

Badly written and historically accumulated .bashrc files are a
nightmare for group environments, because some developer will
propagate the broken crap they've been using for the last 15 years and
call us as admins up, whinging because it "used to wofk!" and "they
didn't change anything", as will their interns who haven't necessarily
learned better and don't know that putting /usr/bin front of /usr/ucb/
bin makes a real difference on some systems.

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:40:07 PM8/26/09
to
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> =A0 =A0...variables and parameters, looping, branching,
>> >>> =A0 =A0quoting...

>>
>> >> Not necessary to use the shell as an interface, except
>> >> quoting.
>>
>> >> But definitely extremely useful and naturally picked up
>> >> by the newbies as they progress. I'd also add aliases and
>> >> simple functions for the same purpose (renaming short command
>> >> scripts) to the list.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0There's never a need for aliases. Always use functions.

>>
>> >> I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
>> >> just gives commands shorter names. Like:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0I would NEVER source functions in /etc/profile.

>>
>> Why not? It's no different than having them in the file itself,
>> is it?
>>
>> >> li () { /usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@" }
>>
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> * For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide
>> >> configuration file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To
>> >> "source", a command, means to include the file. To read it.
>> >> This is in my /etc/profile:
>>
>> >> source /etc/functions
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 That belongs in ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bashrc of users who
>> > =A0 =A0 want it.

>>
>> In this case I want them to be available to all users, including
>> root, and that's what systemwide rc files are for, in part. So
>> you don't have to mess with a bunch of individual files/users.
>
> No, it's what /etc/profiles.d/ is for.
> That prevents manual editing
> for specific feature sets of a shared configuration files, such /etc/
> rc or /etc/rc.local or /etc/profile, and having to pick and choose
> among them and having to *clean up after yourself* when you delete the
> utility that need the funky alias, or JAVA_HOME (which is my recent
> bugaboo), or ANT_HOME, or 'rm' alias, or EDITOR for Subversion use,
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> Badly written and historically accumulated .bashrc files are a
> nightmare for group environments, because some developer will
> propagate the broken crap they've been using for the last 15 years and
> call us as admins up, whinging because it "used to wofk!" and "they
> didn't change anything", as will their interns who haven't necessarily
> learned better and don't know that putting /usr/bin front of /usr/ucb/
> bin makes a real difference on some systems.

I'm sure glad you can't get anywhere near my computers.

Or any of the computers that make the Internet run.

Sid

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:56:06 PM8/26/09
to
On 2009-08-27, Sidney Lambe wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
...

>>> I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
>>> just gives commands shorter names. Like:
>>
>> I would NEVER source functions in /etc/profile.
>
> Why not? It's no different than having them in the file itself,
> is it?

No. That would be just as bad.

>>> li () { /usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@" }
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> * For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide
>>> configuration file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To
>>> "source", a command, means to include the file. To read it.
>>> This is in my /etc/profile:
>>>
>>> source /etc/functions
>>
>> That belongs in ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bashrc of users who
>> want it.
>
> In this case I want them to be available to all users, including
> root, and that's what systemwide rc files are for, in part. So
> you don't have to mess with a bunch of individual files/users.

I see your point, but I don't like to impose functions on all
users. But better functions than aliases.

Nathan Keel

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:58:37 PM8/26/09
to
Sidney Lambe wrote:

> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 8:48=A0pm, Sidney Lambe <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 2009-08-26, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>

...

Learn to snip at least the relevant parts, you worthless troll. Second,
Nico knows more than you ever could hope to. He didn't insult you,
call you a name or point out that you're an idiot, even. He politely
explained why your idea is poorly executed. He didn't say you couldn't
do it, and he didn't tell you what to do, he simply explained the
obvious nature of putting it in /etc/profiles.d/ if you want to do
somethinf custom. You still have a lot to learn, you don't know much
of anything, and you would rather arrogantly shrug off and insult
someone that offers you helpful knowledge, than just to either say
thank you (or just ignore it). What a real fuck you are, Sid! I've
rarely seen someone as clueless and undeserving of an arrogant attitude
as you (though, unfortunately I have seen a few, but not many this
bad).

Florian Diesch

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 11:01:52 PM8/26/09
to
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@gmail.com> writes:


> There's never a need for aliases. Always use functions.

Aliases are often useful to e.g. add some default options to a command
because:

* You can remove an alias using unalias.
* At least in zsh completion keeps working for the alias

>> I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
>> just gives commands shorter names. Like:
>
> I would NEVER source functions in /etc/profile.

Can be useful for globally available functions, but you have to be careful
about compatibility with different shells.

Ubuntu sources /etc/profile.d/*.sh in /etc/profile by default. Some
packages use that e.g. to define specific completions (usually only
bash).

Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/linux/asciipinguine.html>

Keith Keller

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 12:01:25 AM8/27/09
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2009-08-27, Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-08-27, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In this case I want them to be available to all users, including
>> root, and that's what systemwide rc files are for, in part. So
>> you don't have to mess with a bunch of individual files/users.

If your functions were not almost completely useless I might agree.

> I see your point, but I don't like to impose functions on all
> users. But better functions than aliases.

Better to put them, as Niko mentioned, in a separate script in
/etc/profile.d/, than modifying /etc/profile. But better still to only
put things there that the admin wishes to force on his users as a matter
of policy, and let them decide for themselves what to keep and what to
toss. If the admin wants to leave suggestions for the user, he can put
them in users' .bash[_profile|rc] files upon account creation, so that
each user could modify his environment as he wishes. Many distros
include files in /etc/skel/ for this purpose. (A side advantage is that
the admin doesn't have to change the behavior of a system-wide function,
which might cause confusion to users accustomed to the old behavior; he
can instead modify the /etc/skel/ files, so the new definitions are
available for new users, but old users don't get the rug pulled out by
an unexpected change in their environment.)

A competent admin would already know most, if not all, of the above.
New admins should start out this way, so they don't have to unlearn bad
habits.

Keith Keller

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 12:05:31 AM8/27/09
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2009-08-27, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:

[big snip]

> as will their interns who haven't necessarily
> learned better and don't know that putting /usr/bin front of /usr/ucb/
> bin makes a real difference on some systems.

/usr/ucb...Now, that's a directory I've not heard in a long time. A
*long* time. I don't think it's been around since, oh, before ''Sid''
was born.

--keith

(apologies to Nico for misspelling your name as "Niko" in another post)

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 2:40:49 AM8/27/09
to
Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2009-08-27, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> I have a file of functions sourced in my /etc/profile* that
>>>> just gives commands shorter names. Like:
>>>
>>> I would NEVER source functions in /etc/profile.
>>
>> Why not? It's no different than having them in the file
>> itself, is it?
>
> No. That would be just as bad.

Turns out that I actually source /etc/profile in all the
~/.bashrcs.

I guess you'd say that was worse.

I'll fix it, but I wish you'd explain why in more detail.

>
>>>> li () { /usr/bin/links -html-numbered-links 1 "$@" }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> - * For the newbies: /etc/profile is the system wide


>>>> configuration file for bash on my distro, Slackware. To
>>>> "source", a command, means to include the file. To read it.
>>>> This is in my /etc/profile:
>>>>
>>>> source /etc/functions
>>>
>>> That belongs in ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bashrc of users who
>>> want it.
>>
>> In this case I want them to be available to all users,
>> including root, and that's what systemwide rc files are for,
>> in part. So you don't have to mess with a bunch of individual
>> files/users.
>
> I see your point, but I don't like to impose functions on
> all users. But better functions than aliases.

I meant to ask you about aliases above. What's wrong with them?
They are described in detail in man bash with nary a discouraging
word that I can see, other than this:

"For almost every purpose, aliases are superseded by shell functions."

That doesn't seem to be a reason not use them. Just not to use them
for some purposes or in some situations. The same thing would apply to
scripts, it seems to me. They would be superseded by shell functions.

Right?

Does that mean I should give up scripts? I don't think so.

Aliases are handy. What Florian says make sense.

>
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
> Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
> A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
> 2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence


Sid


Message has been deleted

Sidney Lambe

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 5:43:38 AM8/27/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Some even had a character terminal.
>>
>> What's that?
>>
> Think VT52, VT100 and VT220 and similar.

Not in my experience other than as words in some of the man
pages.

>>> Fortunately I missed the delights of punched tape and cards.
>>> I've currently got nine Konsole windows/tabs open because I'm
>>> lazy and tend to open a new one rather than re-use one I've
>>> got pointing to a particular directory/project.
>>
>> "Konsole" <snicker>. It's just an effing x-term.
>

> I did have to check which one it was, to me it's a terminal.
> I prefer it to a raw terminal because I get more rows and
> columns. Mostly they're ssh terminals to headless machines.

That is the one real advantage of an x-term: All those rows and
columns. But I make do with 49 80. I think I could have more with
setconsolefont and setfont, but like I said, I'm okay with my
current setup.

The black background and lightgrey characters are very gentle on
the eyes.

Sid