mike (02/11/91)
In an article, minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!s900387 (Craig Macbride) writes: >If Norton's stuff continues to be this unwieldy, the last thing I'd want to do >is subject my Unix system to it. << Flame On! >> I just read this most _nauseating_ review by Steven Vaughan-Nichols in this month's Computer Shopper. Let me provide you with a few entertaining highlights ... "If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you really start screaming. That's because you've just deleted every file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in and every directory below it." This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the directory of files that you are trying to remove. The permissions of the file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied. Superusers don't casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long. "Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ... "All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will be back. Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files that have been deleted since you installed Norton." Could this be because "nue" is a kludge that accomplishes file recovery with smoke and mirrors? If you said "Yes!", then you win a prize. What _does_ Norton do? "Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing 'removed' files to a hidden directory" Now is this fucking ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes the exact same thing? If you want it in your code, then simply write your own flavor of unlink(). They must be out of their minds to want money for this tripe. "If deletion protection was the only thing that Norton Utilities for System V did for you it would be with its $199 price." You've got to be kidding me! $199 for this trash? Simply amazing. But wait ... Steve's not done yet! "Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk explorer, NDE. This program makes disk and file-system exploration and editing much easier." ... "Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can be edited." Please say it ain't so. Please! Please! Not yet another fantastic way for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI. I think I'm going to be ill. "The goodies don't stop here. Norton includes more than 10 other usefull utilities. There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell Enhancer. This program provides a way to attach bells and whistles to Unix shell programs." Oh God. Please. Not another 'beep' command. Haven't these idiots ever noticed the 'tput' command? "For years, Norton Utilities has been a must-buy for DOS. It's now a must-buy for Unix users as well." Pardon me while I vomit. I'll be back shortly. << Flame Off >> Disclaimer: I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX. I never will. Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and leave the UNIX world alone. This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and I say this with great pride. -- Michael Stefanik | Opinions stated are not even my own. Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) (02/12/91)
I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix. You can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default. Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*, not an end in itself. Some people may be more interested in using the computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus. In article <430@bria>: >[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"] > "If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you > really start screaming. That's because you've just deleted every > file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in > and every directory below it." >This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the >directory of files that you are trying to remove. The permissions of the >file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied. Superusers don't >casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long. Exactly correct. You can protect a file five ways from tuesday and it won't mean diddly against "rm -f". How intuitive is that? And needless to say, "rm -f" works for regular users too. Should everyone be forced to recover from this mistake the hard way, just to "learn their lesson?" Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly, it should be used? Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster than digging out the backup tape. And of course it restores the latest version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version. > "Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ... > "All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will > be back. Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files > that have been deleted since you installed Norton." > "Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing > 'removed' files to a hidden directory" >Now is this f*****g ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this >trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes >the exact same thing? If you want it in your code, then simply write >your own flavor of unlink(). This feature has been discussed on USENET before. As I recall, it intercepts several system calls, including unlink, ftruncate, and statfs. If you do "cat a b > a" you can get a back. The space taken by these backup files is reported as free by all the system calls, and is automatically freed for real if you need it (backup files are dumped in a user-configurable way). Further, this package is targeted toward System V unix systems, which, last time I checked, don't come with source. How is the average SysV user to replace the unlink()s in system code? Heck, we have Sysv source around here somewhere, but I'm not about to go recompile the whole OS just to replace all the unlinks and ftruncates. > "Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk > explorer, NDE. This program makes disk and file-system > exploration and editing much easier." ... > "Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can > be edited." >Please say it ain't so. Please! Please! Not yet another fantastic way >for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI. I think >I'm going to be ill. There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-) Seriously, how often do you edit a file system? I've never had to do it, so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface. If you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest. > "The goodies don't stop here. Norton includes more than 10 other > usefull utilities. There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell > Enhancer. This program provides a way to attach bells and > whistles to Unix shell programs." >Oh God. Please. Not another 'beep' command. Haven't these idiots ever >noticed the 'tput' command? Tput doesn't have an explicit "beep" option; to get a beep from it, you'll have to know something about curses, as well as know about tput itself. Not everyone is a power user like you. Heck, echo ^G might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants or bank managers than unix wizards? >Disclaimer: I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX. >I never will. Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and >leave the UNIX world alone. This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and >I say this with great pride. I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion. IMHO your attitude is a pretty poor one for a "systems engineer." Not everyone has the time, inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that matter). Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not use computers at all? The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the computer priesthood are supposed to be over. For the sake of the other employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but your own. >-- >Michael Stefanik | Opinions stated are not even my own. >Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly >found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..." -- Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu University of Kentucky (606) 257-2975 Department of Mathematics "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- the Doctor
s900387@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Craig Macbride) (02/12/91)
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: >> "Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can >> be edited." >>Please say it ain't so. Please! Please! Not yet another fantastic way >>for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI. I think >>I'm going to be ill. >There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-) >Seriously, how often do you edit a file system? I've never had to do it, >so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface. If >you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest. Well, I have used fsdb once or twice, and, yes, something a little friendlier would have been nice. However, giving novices access to such a thing is like giving out real guns to school children ... mass destruction! >I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion. IMHO your attitude is a >pretty poor one for a "systems engineer." Not everyone has the time, >inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that >matter). Fair enough, but those who don't "learn unix" won't have enough knowledge for editing the superblock to be of any use to them, so why provide them with such? Also, the trivial mis-features of Norton's under DOS make it near impossible for many users to use anyway. I mean, if a user who has a disk problem runs "nu" and it complains of running out of memory, what is the user to do? There are plenty of real-world users (eg. secretaries) who have join'd and subst'd directories set up by someone else (eg. their boss, whose machine it is), who can't use many of Norton's functions on vast sections of their file system. In short, Nortons treads a fine line, providing a neat user-interface allowing novices to do very destructive things to their machine in ignorance, while at the same time preventing non-experts from doing things which should be easy! They don't seem to know who to aim their product at, and thus make a bit of a mash of it. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Craig Macbride, s900387@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | Reality is for people who | | Only the equipment belongs to Victoria Uni. | can't handle science fiction.| | of Technology (RMIT); The opinions are mine. |______________________________|
jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) (02/13/91)
Michael Stefanik writes: :In an article, minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!s900387 (Craig Macbride) writes: ::If Norton's stuff continues to be this unwieldy, the last thing I'd want to do ::is subject my Unix system to it. :<< Flame On! :: :I just read this most _nauseating_ review by Steven Vaughan-Nichols in :this month's Computer Shopper. Let me provide you with a few entertaining :highlights ... : "If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you : really start screaming. That's because you've just deleted every : file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in : and every directory below it." :This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the :directory of files that you are trying to remove. The permissions of the :file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied. Superusers don't :casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long. : "Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ... : "All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will : be back. Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files : that have been deleted since you installed Norton." :Could this be because "nue" is a kludge that accomplishes file recovery :with smoke and mirrors? If you said "Yes!", then you win a prize. What :_does_ Norton do? : "Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing : 'removed' files to a hidden directory" :Now is this fucking ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this :trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes :the exact same thing? If you want it in your code, then simply write :your own flavor of unlink(). They must be out of their minds to want money :for this tripe. : "If deletion protection was the only thing that Norton Utilities : for System V did for you it would be with its $199 price." Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and in a free market economy value is determined by what someone is willing to pay -- not by the perceptions of someone who has no need and no interest in what is being offered for sale. Your solution is not acceptable in many UNIX shops because it is over the heads of the system administrators, these organizations have no programmers, and they don't even know enough to explain what they want to a programmer. Growth in UNIX is going to mean a much higher percentage of shops run by the computer ignorant for the benefit of the computer illiterate. Unfortunately, the systems administrators in these places aren't (in my experience) interested in learning anything beyond the minimum about UNIX and the computer since their other duties take precedence over the care and feeding of the computer system. Their alternatives are to buy packages like the Norton Utilities or (hopefully) stumble across, purchase, and implement the shell scripts in Russell Sage's book "Tricks of the UNIX Masters". I would rather see them become educated and qualified users, but I would rather see them buy the Norton Utilities than to suffer the consequences of doing nothing. :technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly :found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..." In the future they will be saying "Well, it worked on my DOS machine -- why can't I do that using UNIX?" It is up to the UNIX community to provide a new class of tools aimed at the needs of the "unwilling users" who will be migrating to our systems in the future. -- Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. Ma Bell (703)683-9090 (UUCP: ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry
hartman@ide.com (Robert Hartman) (02/13/91)
In article <kherron.666298945@s.ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: >I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix. You >can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and >more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default. >Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*, >not an end in itself. Some people may be more interested in using the >computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus. >... >Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly, >it should be used? > >Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster >than digging out the backup tape. And of course it restores the latest >version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version. >... >There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-) >... Not everyone is a power user like you. Heck, echo ^G >might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just >because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants >or bank managers than unix wizards? >... Not everyone has the time, >inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that >matter). Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not >use computers at all? The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the >computer priesthood are supposed to be over. ... I completely agree with these sentiments. There are some very good ideas in UNIX. Unfortunately, its elegance and power has been severely hampered by the arrogant assumption that computers are only for "experts." -r
pww@bnr.ca (Peter Whittaker) (02/13/91)
In article <1059@TALOS.UUCP> jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes: >:technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly >:found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..." > >In the future they will be saying "Well, it worked on my DOS >machine -- why can't I do that using UNIX?" It is up to the >UNIX community to provide a new class of tools aimed at the >needs of the "unwilling users" who will be migrating to our >systems in the future. No! It isn't at all - I am a member of the UNIX community, and I certainly do not view this as my responsibility. Whose responsibility is it? Two groups: The vendors: they market UNIX as a solution, and it had damn well better be. If they claim that moving to UNIX will solve problems that exist on DOS, then moving must not only solve those problems, IT MUST NOT CREATE ANY NEW ONES! The paper-pushers: when non-users mandate a move to an OS, it is up them to make damn sure the move has as close to zero impact as possible. And maybe a third: SysAdmins: those who administer users' systems are paid what they are in an an attempt to make users' time as effective as possible. If my SysAdmin supplies a tool inadequate to my job, and I don't have time to build a better one, I (J. User) have every right to complain that that person (Q. SysAdmin) is not doing the job they were hired to do. It is most definitely not the responsibility of users (esp. ones who already have more than enough to do, thank you) to supply such tools. Those that we do supply are gravy, and folks (users, vendors, sysadmins, and paper-pushers) had better appreciate the, or we'll stop coming up with them. -- Peter Whittaker [~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~] Open Systems Integration pww@bnr.ca [ ] Bell Northern Research Ph: +1 613 765 2064 [ ] P.O. Box 3511, Station C FAX:+1 613 763 3283 [__________________________] Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4H7
mike (02/14/91)
In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes: >I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix. You >can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and >more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default. >Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*, >not an end in itself. Some people may be more interested in using the >computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus. In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. Not so in the UNIX world. The end-user does not and should not need to know about anything other than logging in, reading/sending mail, and using the application(s) that meet his/her job requirements. This same end-user has no use for NU. Personally, I would never trust an administrator that leaned on menus and shrink-wrapped scripts _too_ much. How much is too much? I have encountered "sysadmins" who couldn't add a user without some sort of script. Not worth a dime, IMHO. >In article <430@bria>: > >>[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"] > >> "If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you >> really start screaming. That's because you've just deleted every >> file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in >> and every directory below it." > >>This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the >>directory of files that you are trying to remove. The permissions of the >>file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied. Superusers don't >>casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long. > >Exactly correct. You can protect a file five ways from tuesday and it >won't mean diddly against "rm -f". How intuitive is that? And needless >to say, "rm -f" works for regular users too. Should everyone be forced >to recover from this mistake the hard way, just to "learn their lesson?" >Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly, >it should be used? There is a tradeoff here. It seems to me that making things easier for you, things get more convoluted for me. No thanks. How about putting a a copy of this program in /usr/local/bin and make it first in PATH for those end-users ... /* rm - rm for the end-user */ #include <stdio.h> #include <ctype.h> main(argc,argv) int argc; char **argv; { char *file, buf[32]; printf("Greetings poor, ignorant end-user. I am your friendly "); printf("\"rm\" program\n"); while ( --argc ) { file = *++argv; printf("I see that you want to delete \"%s\"\n",file); printf("Is this really true? (y/n) "); if ( gets(buf) == NULL ) break; if ( toupper(*buf) == 'Y' ) { printf("Are you really, really sure? "); if ( gets(buf) == NULL ) break; if ( toupper(*buf) != 'Y' ) continue; if ( unlink(file) == -1 ) printf("Oooops! Sorry, I cannot do that!\n"); else printf("Oh well, \"%s\" is gone forever.\n", file); } else printf("Okay, I will not delete \"%s\"n",file); } } >Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster >than digging out the backup tape. And of course it restores the latest >version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version. Which is fine and dandy if you don't mind increasing your disk space on really active systems. A DC6150 is cheaper than a 150M disk, methinks. >> "Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ... >> "All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will >> be back. Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files >> that have been deleted since you installed Norton." > >> "Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing >> 'removed' files to a hidden directory" > >>Now is this f*****g ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this >>trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes >>the exact same thing? If you want it in your code, then simply write >>your own flavor of unlink(). > >This feature has been discussed on USENET before. As I recall, it >intercepts several system calls, including unlink, ftruncate, and statfs. >If you do "cat a b > a" you can get a back. The space taken by these backup >files is reported as free by all the system calls, and is automatically freed >for real if you need it (backup files are dumped in a user-configurable way). Oh, that's lovely. So, you unlink a file, but in reality it moves it somewhere else, and to add to that, the system lies to me when I ask how much free space there is? In my opinion, that _sucks_. >Further, this package is targeted toward System V unix systems, which, last >time I checked, don't come with source. How is the average SysV user to >replace the unlink()s in system code? Heck, we have Sysv source around >here somewhere, but I'm not about to go recompile the whole OS just to >replace all the unlinks and ftruncates. So instead, you're going to puchase some kludge that mungs with the operating system in some very uncool ways. I'd vote for the recompile. > >> "Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk >> explorer, NDE. This program makes disk and file-system >> exploration and editing much easier." ... >> "Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can >> be edited." > >>Please say it ain't so. Please! Please! Not yet another fantastic way >>for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI. I think >>I'm going to be ill. > >There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-) >Seriously, how often do you edit a file system? I've never had to do it, >so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface. If >you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest. Okay. > >> "The goodies don't stop here. Norton includes more than 10 other >> usefull utilities. There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell >> Enhancer. This program provides a way to attach bells and >> whistles to Unix shell programs." > >>Oh God. Please. Not another 'beep' command. Haven't these idiots ever >>noticed the 'tput' command? > >Tput doesn't have an explicit "beep" option; to get a beep from it, >you'll have to know something about curses, as well as know about >tput itself. Not everyone is a power user like you. Heck, echo ^G >might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just >because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants >or bank managers than unix wizards? People who are interested in being secrataries or accountants are not going to waste their time writing useless shell scripts that beep, or draw boxes, or whatever. >>Disclaimer: I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX. >>I never will. Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and >>leave the UNIX world alone. This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and >>I say this with great pride. > >I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion. IMHO your attitude is a >pretty poor one for a "systems engineer." Not everyone has the time, >inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that >matter). [...] If you're an accountant, then do accounting, not programming. >Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not >use computers at all? The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the >computer priesthood are supposed to be over. For the sake of the other >employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but >your own. Oh, I _do_ just love little digs like this. I reject the argument that everyone should be able to administer a computer system. I can't repair cars, and I don't try to. I go to a mechanic. If you can't admin your machine, then don't try to. Hire someone who can do the job right. Call it a priesthood, call it whatever you want. Can you do brain surgery? Would you moan, bitch, and complain because you have to "bow down" to the neurosurgeon when you have a brain tumor? I take it that you would much rather go to medical school and perform the surgery yourself with waldoes. As far as mortals bowing down to programmers, well, it's nonsense. I do a job, and I do it damn well. Don't try to do my job, and I promise to not try to do yours. As an aside, why is it that there is always the argument that computers are being used by "real people" for "real work", but the disussion has to do with some esoteric nonsense that no end-user would even dream of trying to do? Just a thought. Okay guys, I have my asbestos suit on ... let me have it. :-) :-) -- Michael Stefanik | Opinions stated are not even my own. Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."
nichols@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott P Nichols) (02/15/91)
In article <433@bria> uunet!bria!mike writes: > >As far as mortals bowing down to programmers, well, it's nonsense. I do > ((Excellent, well written stuff deleted...no room)) > >a job, and I do it damn well. Don't try to do my job, and I promise to >not try to do yours. > >As an aside, why is it that there is always the argument that computers >-- No flames here. Give the guy a new Sun...he can write and sysadmin... I wish everyone thought like this man. SN -- O- /\ |\ /\/vv\ /vv\ \ __Insight from Oregon...Scott P. Nichols _____/ \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (nichols@en.ecn.purdue.edu)
de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (02/15/91)
In article <433@bria>, Michael Stefanik writes: > >In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. >You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. >In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. >Not so in the UNIX world. Excellent point. Now if only we could convince UNIX owners/users that they're really not qualified to administer their own systems, we'd be good shape. >/* rm - rm for the end-user */ > >[most of C source deleted] > > printf("Greetings poor, ignorant end-user. I am your friendly "); > printf("\"rm\" program\n"); Overdone to prove a point, but I pretty much agree with the idea. Of course, all these end-user commands should go under /enduser/bin or /commands, and they should be called "delete" (not rm), "type" (not cat), etc. And they ought not be as flexible and powerful as the UNIX commands, e.g., "type" shouldn't cat out binaries or directories. >Okay guys, I have my asbestos suit on ... let me have it. :-) :-) Not me, I agree. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
it1@ra.MsState.Edu (Tim Tsai) (02/15/91)
In article <433@bria>: >In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes: >In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. >You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. >In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. >Not so in the UNIX world. It is very often the case in the 386/Unix world.. With prices of workstations dropping, more end users will have their own Unix box on their desk. >The end-user does not and should not need to know about anything other >than logging in, reading/sending mail, and using the application(s) that >meet his/her job requirements. This same end-user has no use for NU. There are lots of computer proficient "end-users" who aren't sysadmins, and they'll use whatever tools they find necessary. >Personally, I would never trust an administrator that leaned on menus >and shrink-wrapped scripts _too_ much. How much is too much? I have >encountered "sysadmins" who couldn't add a user without some sort of >script. Not worth a dime, IMHO. Sysadmins' gotta start somewhere. Were you born with knowledge of Unix internals? What's wrong with packages that ease the job of system administrators? By your definition, any sysadmin that relies on a full-screen editor isn't worth a dime either. A *REAL* sysadmin would use ed, right? >>In article <430@bria>: >There is a tradeoff here. It seems to me that making things easier for you, >things get more convoluted for me. No thanks. How about putting a >a copy of this program in /usr/local/bin and make it first in PATH for >those end-users ... How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you? Don't you already do that on a regular basis if you are a sysadmin? With an undelete package, I can only see less trouble for a sysadmin.. For one, he/she wouldn't have to keep answering messages asking how to undelete a file (or at least have a solution)! Note that I dislike Norton Utilities, but there are instances where an undelete command would've come in handy. I don't go around complaining to my sysadmin about it because I know there isn't an easy solution... If there IS an easy solution that doesn't create any hassle for the sysadmin however, I certainly would... [rm program deleted] I'm glad you aren't my sysadmin. -- I'd never cry if I did find a blue whale in my soup... Nor would I mind a porcupine inside a chicken coop. Yes life is fine when things combine, like ham in beef chow mein... But Lord this time I think I mind, they've put acid in my rain. <Milo Bloom>
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (02/15/91)
[The article being replied to had a "Distribution: na", and the first reference seem to be from .oz.au?!?!?!] In article <kherron.666298945@s.ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: > Not everyone has the time, > inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that > matter). Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not > use computers at all? The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the > computer priesthood are supposed to be over. I really wanted to pick nits with your entire article, but I didn't think it would accomplish anything. I get very upset by people who perpetuate myths. MS-DOS is *not* easier to learn to use than UNIX. Perhaps Mac's are, but that's comparing apples to oranges [:-)] [I can smile at my own pun, can't I?] Yes, MS-DOS can be easier to administer than UNIX, but that's a different story. If you'd care to take some time to read some background you'd find out that even Bell Labs patent secretaries could turn out troff documents using ed on teletypes after only 2 hours of training. I believe they even had a significant increase in productivity too. If you need to *use* a computer to get a job done, there's nothing standing in your way from learning to use UNIX, and there's certainly nothing standing in the way of letting UNIX do the job for you. As far as I know, there is more real *information* about how to use, administer, and programme for UNIX than there is for any other operating system. I would guess there is also far more real expertise for UNIX in the world than there is for any other o/s. There may even be more *information* about how UNIX works than for any other o/s. Just today I read a message (in some other group) where the author expressed some questions about UNIX administration, particularly about filesystem related things, such as fsck. This person claimed he couldn't find any information in the manuals. I'll guarantee that he didn't really read the manual, or maybe he didn't have "the" manual he should have. One may not be able to blame him for the latter, but you certainly can for the former! The problem with Norton Utilities for UNIX is that they are muddling up the task of the user with the task of the administrator. They also muddy the waters the average administrator must walk through. What's going to happen to the system run by an administrator who comes to rely on the Norton Utilities, when some day he has to repair his filesystem from a boot floppy that doesn't have Norton on it? There is a problem when someone switches from using something kind of computer to using some other kind of computer, and then expects to learn nothing new, and that everything will work the same, because they already know how to use a computer! ARGH! Just because you know how to "administer" an MS-DOS system with the Norton Utilities, doesn't mean porting those utilities to UNIX will allow you to be a UNIX administrator! [For those things where you might say that Norton for UNIX adds value, I'd say there are far better ways add such value without breaking the UNIX philosophy, i.e. the thing which makes UNIX strong!] The only day when ordinary mortals will be able to stop bowing down to the "computer priesthood" will be the day when they stop walking around in a daze, and put some intellectual energy into learning about the computing environment they are using. Computers really are easy, once you both accept the fact that they make you think, and that you may have to re-adjust the way you view the world. (It seems to me that most people need to make that little leap into knowing that the computer is a powerless slave that follows your directions, and only your directions, to the letter.) This goes for UNIX, MS-DOS, and IMHO, Mac's too! Now, as for the question of whether a "user" can learn to administer a UNIX system, I say yes, iff he is willing to learn a little more than he did to use the system. Today's UNIX (i.e. UNIX SysVr3.2) with 'sysadm' and/or 'face' is extremely easy to learn to administer, compared to what one had to learn not so many years ago. With the wealth of information that is available for the new administrator, I see no reason why anyone who *understands* something about computers can't learn to administer a UNIX system. [Wow! I wish this discussion wasn't taking place in comp.unix.shell. Maybe we should move it to comp.unix.misc, or somewhere?] -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (02/16/91)
From the keyboard of woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods):
:In article <kherron.666298945@s.ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
:> Not everyone has the time,
:> inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that
:> matter).
:
:I get very upset by people who perpetuate myths. MS-DOS is *not*
:easier to learn to use than UNIX.
Yes, what he said. I get very upset by people who just don't want
to learn anything. It's like being given a Porsche and not wanting
to know that you should get the oil changed now and then. No one
wants to learn anything. Once you've stopped learning, you're dead,
or might as well be, because you'll never adapt.
If we've created a priesthood of people who want to learn and enjoy
doing so, so be it.
Note the followup-to.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tchrist@convex.com convex!tchrist
"All things are possible, but not all expedient." (in life, UNIX, and perl)mike (02/17/91)
In an article, woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: |Just today I read a message (in some other group) where the author |The only day when ordinary mortals will be able to stop bowing down to |the "computer priesthood" will be the day when they stop walking |around in a daze, and put some intellectual energy into learning about |the computing environment they are using. [...] Give that man a cigar! The entire article was well put, and I for one agree completely. The "priesthood" that some many people are moaning and wailing about exists _only_ by virtue of their own ignorance. |woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada |+1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA |Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL -- Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own. Title of the week: Systems Engineer | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?
mike@bria (02/17/91)
In an article, ra.MsState.Edu!it1 (Tim Tsai) writes: |In article <433@bria>: ||In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes: ||In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. ||You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. ||In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. ||Not so in the UNIX world. | | It is very often the case in the 386/Unix world.. With prices of | workstations dropping, more end users will have their own Unix box on | their desk. And most of these workstations with be networked, and have a central authority. I doubt that since an accountant has his dumb terminal replaced with a workstation, he is going to be that much more inclined to admin his workstation by virtue of it's capability to be administered. ||The end-user does not and should not need to know about anything other ||than logging in, reading/sending mail, and using the application(s) that ||meet his/her job requirements. This same end-user has no use for NU. | | There are lots of computer proficient "end-users" who aren't | sysadmins, and they'll use whatever tools they find necessary. Computer proficient users can do whatever they like, permissions not with- standing. However, the thrust of tool development is, and should be, the computer professional. ||Personally, I would never trust an administrator that leaned on menus ||and shrink-wrapped scripts _too_ much. How much is too much? I have ||encountered "sysadmins" who couldn't add a user without some sort of ||script. Not worth a dime, IMHO. | | Sysadmins' gotta start somewhere. Were you born with knowledge of | Unix internals? What's wrong with packages that ease the job of system | administrators? By your definition, any sysadmin that relies on a | full-screen editor isn't worth a dime either. A *REAL* sysadmin would | use ed, right? Yes, you do have to start somewhere. My point was that too many UNIX "professionals" are not learning the _innards_ of the operating system. They are using scripts and such (that were designed to make routine jobs a bit easier) as a _crutch_. And yes, a sysadmin that relies on 'vi' and has no idea how to use 'ed' is NOT worth a dime. Know why? Sometime, he's gonna run into a situation where his /usr filesystem got hosed, or the /etc/termcap got chunked. If something like that stops a sysadmin, then yep, he's worthless as a plug nickel. ||There is a tradeoff here. It seems to me that making things easier for you, ||things get more convoluted for me. No thanks. How about putting a ||a copy of this program in /usr/local/bin and make it first in PATH for ||those end-users ... | | How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you? It depends. Since Norton attaches itself, virus-like, to my kernel, and induces the kernel to lie to me about the true state of affairs on the system, I would count this as a hinderance. | I'm glad you aren't my sysadmin. And, oh boy am I glad you're not my end-user. :-) -- Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own. Title of the week: Systems Engineer | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?
greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) (02/21/91)
In article <kherron.666298945@s.ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: >I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix. You >can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and >more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default. >Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*, >not an end in itself. Some people may be more interested in using the >computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus. I think Mr. Herron has missed the point about Mr. Stefanik's criticism of the Norton Utilities. If people are interested in using the computer, then they should be at least literate enough to be able to read a manual should the need arise. Most certainly if they're not adept enough to be able to write scripts/programs/whatever, that's probably not what they're paid to do, and unless they're willing to expend some time and energy to learn how, they probably shouldn't bother. > >In article <430@bria>: > >>[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"] > [ rm -rf <dir> causes user panic... ] >>This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the >>directory of files that you are trying to remove. The permissions of the >>file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied. Superusers don't >>casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long. > >Exactly correct. You can protect a file five ways from tuesday and it >won't mean diddly against "rm -f". How intuitive is that? And needless >to say, "rm -f" works for regular users too. Should everyone be forced >to recover from this mistake the hard way, just to "learn their lesson?" Hey, man, if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to have to find out one way or another. One way is to RTFM before you go gallivanting about the filesystem -- or even your own directory structure -- while wielding all the weapons in /bin. Another way is to issue a bogus command line option and see what the program says (the lazy man's manual, and I curse programs that have neither a man page nor a useful usage message!). Yet another way is trial and error. This is not the recommended MO for the beginner. >Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly, >it should be used? You want UNIX user-friendly? Fine. Write a menu suite. Use a semi- restricted shell. Write your own commands. Sell it. Make a fortune. I do hope you wouldn't plan on making user-friendliness a de facto standard. > >Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster >than digging out the backup tape. And of course it restores the latest >version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version. You want an undeleter? I have an "rm" file recovery suite which I will be more than happy to distribute once I get it organized again. You could probably write one yourself. I did it more or less as a programming exer- cise, but I use it on a regular basis. It's *extremely* rare I delete anything I don't mean to (as a superuser, one learns to read their command lines five times over before pressing <RETURN>...), but when I do, my own setup saves my ass. > >> "Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ... >> "All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will >> be back. Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files >> that have been deleted since you installed Norton." > >> "Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing >> 'removed' files to a hidden directory" > >>Now is this f*****g ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this >>trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes >>the exact same thing? If you want it in your code, then simply write >>your own flavor of unlink(). > >This feature has been discussed on USENET before. As I recall, it >intercepts several system calls, including unlink, ftruncate, and statfs. >If you do "cat a b > a" you can get a back. The space taken by these backup >files is reported as free by all the system calls, and is automatically freed >for real if you need it (backup files are dumped in a user-configurable way). Grand. This is such a great idea, I could jump for joy. Whoop de fucking do. Now I have the system lying to me about the disk space that's there. "I overflowed the filesystem and need to use even beyond the minfree threshhold. Sorry, you won't be able to recover those files anymore!" Or does it tack them on to the end of swap and hope your system doesn't thrash? > >Further, this package is targeted toward System V unix systems, which, last >time I checked, don't come with source. How is the average SysV user to >replace the unlink()s in system code? Heck, we have Sysv source around >here somewhere, but I'm not about to go recompile the whole OS just to >replace all the unlinks and ftruncates. You'd trust some outside program to come in and do a binary patch on your kernel and possibly the system object modules? What *do* you do for a living, anyway? You're not a sysadmin; this much is clear. > >> "Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk >> explorer, NDE. This program makes disk and file-system >> exploration and editing much easier." ... >> "Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can >> be edited." > >>Please say it ain't so. Please! Please! Not yet another fantastic way >>for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI. I think >>I'm going to be ill. > >There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-) Truly said ("dd if=/vmunix of=/dev/kmem", though under sun 4.1+ even this doesn't work...), but most of them, given preparation, are recoverable. >Seriously, how often do you edit a file system? I've never had to do it, Lucky you. Avoid it if you can. >so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface. If >you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest. Fsdb is fairly decent. It's when you have to use adb that it gets tricky, and even then you can manage to create all the right scripts and macros to handle what you need. If you need more than one file, go get the backup tapes. It's easier. EMACS directory mode doesn't seem to do anything fancy; it just looks good. (???) > >> "The goodies don't stop here. Norton includes more than 10 other >> usefull utilities. There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell >> Enhancer. This program provides a way to attach bells and >> whistles to Unix shell programs." > >>Oh God. Please. Not another 'beep' command. Haven't these idiots ever >>noticed the 'tput' command? > >Tput doesn't have an explicit "beep" option; to get a beep from it, >you'll have to know something about curses, as well as know about >tput itself. Not everyone is a power user like you. Heck, echo ^G >might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just >because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants >or bank managers than unix wizards? As Mr. Stefanik has also pointed out, if they're secretaries or accountants or bank managers, they're not going to have the @#(#@(* TIME to be playing with boxes or beeps or creating their own menus. They'll probably be menu-fied anyway. > >>Disclaimer: I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX. >>I never will. Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and >>leave the UNIX world alone. This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and >>I say this with great pride. > >I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion. IMHO your attitude is a >pretty poor one for a "systems engineer." Not everyone has the time, >inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that >matter). Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not >use computers at all? So the person who can write a good menu interface for the naive user on top of UNIX will make a fortune. If you expect to have any flexibility, you had better be prepared to learn how to use your system to some degree of proficiency. It doesn't mean that you need to learn how to do wizardly things, it just means that you need to learn what your machine will and will not let you do. It's like driving a car -- you have to learn how to do it. You will notice that it does take some people an inordinate amount of time to even learn how to drive a car (and it's NOT necessarily because of lack of intellect, bad eyesight, finances or mental or physical incapacity). >The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the >computer priesthood are supposed to be over. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the days of the "computer priesthood" are *far* from over, and, selfish/elitist as it sounds, I hope they never are. Hell, do you think that we should have to stop "bowing down" to the "auto repair priesthood"? How do you propose that we would accomplish this? It's too damned complex. If you don't want to have to get your car fixed, learn to do it yourself. I don't have the time to learn this at the moment, so I have it fixed by someone who knows what they are doing. You're effectively saying that even if someone doesn't know how to drive that they should not have to learn. (It's already unfortunate enough that people don't drive courteously.) >For the sake of the other >employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but >your own. Sirrah, as part of a system admin team, it is our *responsibility* to the users to make sure that files are backed up in a timely manner, to know how to recover from disasters, to know how to help the user with any problem they may have. We do the best we can. If we have time-critical data which requires backing up on a more frequent level than a single day, we are equipped to do so. If the naive user needs something that isn't there, we write it. If the naive user doesn't understand something and doesn't have immediate access or interest in a manual, we explain it. I guess we're just lucky enough to have naive users who know how to take notes on what to do when something goes wrong (they have all learned how to fix many things themselves). > >>-- >>Michael Stefanik | Opinions stated are not even my own. >>Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly >>found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..." That about says it. >-- >Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu > "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- the Doctor ^^^^ With a .sig quote like that, you're defending NORTON for UNIX? Come on. -- The above comments are solely the opinions of the author. Nothing written, said or communicated in this article can be construed to be the opinion or the policy of UniSoft Corporation or any other employee therein unless explicitly stated by said employee. -- # The days of the computer priesthood are not over. # May they never be. # If it sounds selfish, consider how most companies stay in business.
greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) (02/21/91)
In article <it1.666574798@ra> it1@ra.MsState.Edu (Tim Tsai) writes: >In article <433@bria>: >>In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes: >>In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. >>You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. >>In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. >>Not so in the UNIX world. > > It is very often the case in the 386/Unix world.. With prices of > workstations dropping, more end users will have their own Unix box on > their desk. A 386 Unix box almost seems like an oxymoron (I have yet to see a stable 386ix), but that's another department. > > There are lots of computer proficient "end-users" who aren't > sysadmins, and they'll use whatever tools they find necessary. > Great. As long as the tools that they use are what is handy. These tools are not as likely to kludge up the kernel and/or munge the filesystem. > > Sysadmins' gotta start somewhere. Were you born with knowledge of > Unix internals? What's wrong with packages that ease the job of system > administrators? By your definition, any sysadmin that relies on a > full-screen editor isn't worth a dime either. A *REAL* sysadmin would > use ed, right? Perhaps a bit far fetched, but what's wrong with packages which ease the job is that THE POTENTIAL SYSADMIN NEVER LEARNS HOW IT WORKS. He plugs it in. It goes. It's magic. What if he has to go somewhere else where the simplistic plug-and-go utility is Not There? He's shit outta luck because he didn't take the time to understand the underlying mechanics about what was going on. It's as bad as a car mechanic whose only option is to replace parts because he doesn't know how to repair/refurbish/adjust them. > >>>In article <430@bria>: > > How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you? > Don't you already do that on a regular basis if you are a sysadmin? > With an undelete package, I can only see less trouble for a > sysadmin.. For one, he/she wouldn't have to keep answering messages > asking how to undelete a file (or at least have a solution)! Note > that I dislike Norton Utilities, but there are instances where an > undelete command would've come in handy. I don't go around > complaining to my sysadmin about it because I know there isn't an easy > solution... If there IS an easy solution that doesn't create any > hassle for the sysadmin however, I certainly would... Implement a different version of "rm" for the novice users and make an alias to it. This has been frowned upon in many circles, but we have two options, both of which depend upon what the user expects to be doing. For a novice user, having an extra "rm" sitting around isn't such a bad thing. The disadvantage is that the user will become accustomed to it and might not have that luxury of "recover"able files at his next job. The other option is to learn how to use the computer and realise that the "rm" command is NOT to be used with impunity. When you delete something, you delete it. It's *gone* except for yesterday's backups unless you worked for four hours creating it between then and now. I have a trash-management scheme for "rm". If there's sufficient interest in it I'll repost it to comp.sources.unix. -- # The days of the computer priesthood are not over. # May they never be. # If it sounds selfish, consider how most companies stay in business.