| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353034] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 10:03  |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge wrote:
> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> John Levine wrote:
>>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>>> books.
>>>
>>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>
>> That one was written for general users, not system administrators. One
>> has to know system administration before using when one owns the system.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> It's TOPS-10's
>
> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
> are *gone*. Get over it.
>
>
I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353038 is a reply to message #353034] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 10:18  |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>>> >books.
>>>>
>>>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>
>>> That one was written for general users, not system administrators. One
>>> has to know system administration before using when one owns the system.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> It's TOPS-10's
>>
>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>
>>
> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353041 is a reply to message #353038] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 10:33 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Huge wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> > In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>started" books.
>>>> >
>>>> > Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> > for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>>
>>>> That one was written for general users, not system administrators.
>>>> One has to know system administration before using when one owns the
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> It's TOPS-10's
>>>
>>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>
>>>
>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>
> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
However it is far less well organised as well as being more prone
to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353050 is a reply to message #353041] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 16:03 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > John Levine wrote:
>>>> >> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>>started" books.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> >> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >
>>>> > That one was written for general users, not system administrators.
>>>> > One has to know system administration before using when one owns the
>>>> > system.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> > It's TOPS-10's
>>>>
>>>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>
>> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
>> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
>> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>
> However it is far less well organised as well as being more prone
> to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a big
deal.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353057 is a reply to message #353050] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 16:50 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Huge wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>>>started" books.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> >>> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That one was written for general users, not system administrators.
>>>> >> One has to know system administration before using when one owns the
>>>> >> system.
>>>> >
>>>> > Wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> >> It's TOPS-10's
>>>> >
>>>> > No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>>> > are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>
>>> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
>>> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
>>> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>
>> However it is far less well organised as well as being more prone
>> to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>
> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a big
> deal.
I disagree. I will not use a tool (where, in this day and age, an operating
system is a tool) for which I have to search the web more than once for
adequate documentation--and I do not have our friend Barb's resource
limitations.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353066 is a reply to message #353034] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 16:54 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>>> > books.
>>>>
>>>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>
>>> That one was written for general users, not system administrators. One
>>> has to know system administration before using when one owns the system.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> It's TOPS-10's
>>
>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>
>>
> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>
Indeed. The VMS documentation may have been better than IBM's.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353068 is a reply to message #353038] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 16:54 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Huge wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> > In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>>> >> books.
>>>> >
>>>> > Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> > for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>>
>>>> That one was written for general users, not system administrators. One
>>>> has to know system administration before using when one owns the system.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> It's TOPS-10's
>>>
>>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>
>>>
>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>
> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>
Much greater, but so badly organized as to be almost useless. Google a
specific problem and most of what turns up is either a series of unanswered
questions or some old stuff that doesn't apply to your version of the
software or is the solution to some specialized problem that's not quite
the same as yours.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353079 is a reply to message #353057] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 21:53 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >Huge wrote:
>>>> >> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>>>>started" books.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in
>>>> >>>> print for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That one was written for general users, not system
>>>> >>> administrators. One has to know system administration before
>>>> >>> using when one owns the system.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Wrong.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> It's TOPS-10's
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is
>>>> >> *gone*. Minicomputers are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>>> >Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> >is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>>
>>>> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days of
>>>> the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available is
>>>> far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>>
>>> However it is far less well organised as well as being more
>>> prone to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>>
>> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a
>> big deal.
>
> I disagree. I will not use a tool (where, in this day and age, an
> operating system is a tool) for which I have to search the web more
> than once for adequate documentation
Feel free to use what you want.
Where did I say that anyone has to search more than once.
Exactly how is a room full of "well organised" documentation going to
help anyone? I remember using well organized paper documents. I'd
rather type in a search term every time.
IBM has it's well organized documentation online. It's a pain to search
because every important keyword is repeated in the table of contents,
then revision history, then chapter heading, and on and on.
Linux documentation is pretty damn good. More important, when you have
a problem, the odds are really high that others have seen it and
identified the solution. As great as the old paper stuff was, the
modern world has changed because what we have now is clearly better.
> --and I do not have our friend Barb's resource limitations.
She's been down this path at least 3 times in the last few years. Must
be people with short memories trying to make constructive comments.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353095 is a reply to message #353079] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 04:41 |
simon
Messages: 185
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, in article <oq1qep$ck2$1@dont-email.me>
dan1espen@gmail.com "Dan Espen" wrote:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
[...]
>>>> >> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> >> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>> >
>>>> > And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days of
>>>> > the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available is
>>>> > far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>>>
>>>> However it is far less well organised as well as being more
>>>> prone to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>>>
>>> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a
>>> big deal.
>>
>> I disagree. I will not use a tool (where, in this day and age, an
>> operating system is a tool) for which I have to search the web more
>> than once for adequate documentation
>
> Feel free to use what you want.
>
> Where did I say that anyone has to search more than once.
>
> Exactly how is a room full of "well organised" documentation going to
> help anyone? I remember using well organized paper documents. I'd
> rather type in a search term every time.
You can't grep dead trees.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353103 is a reply to message #353050] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 08:00 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Huge wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>>> started" books.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> >>> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That one was written for general users, not system administrators.
>>>> >> One has to know system administration before using when one owns the
>>>> >> system.
>>>> >
>>>> > Wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> >> It's TOPS-10's
>>>> >
>>>> > No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>>> > are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>
>>> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
>>> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
>>> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>
>> However it is far less well organised as well as being more prone
>> to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>
> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a big
> deal.
>
Try looking for a movie to watch on YouTube and try that one again.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353105 is a reply to message #353079] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 08:00 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >> Huge wrote:
>>>> >>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>>>> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting
>>>> >>>>>> started" books.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in
>>>> >>>>> print for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That one was written for general users, not system
>>>> >>>> administrators. One has to know system administration before
>>>> >>>> using when one owns the system.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Wrong.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> It's TOPS-10's
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is
>>>> >>> *gone*. Minicomputers are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>>> >> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> >> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>> >
>>>> > And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days of
>>>> > the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available is
>>>> > far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>>>
>>>> However it is far less well organised as well as being more
>>>> prone to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>>>
>>> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a
>>> big deal.
>>
>> I disagree. I will not use a tool (where, in this day and age, an
>> operating system is a tool) for which I have to search the web more
>> than once for adequate documentation
>
> Feel free to use what you want.
>
> Where did I say that anyone has to search more than once.
>
> Exactly how is a room full of "well organised" documentation going to
> help anyone? I remember using well organized paper documents. I'd
> rather type in a search term every time.
>
> IBM has it's well organized documentation online. It's a pain to search
> because every important keyword is repeated in the table of contents,
> then revision history, then chapter heading, and on and on.
>
> Linux documentation is pretty damn good. More important, when you have
> a problem, the odds are really high that others have seen it and
> identified the solution. As great as the old paper stuff was, the
> modern world has changed because what we have now is clearly better.
>
>> --and I do not have our friend Barb's resource limitations.
>
> She's been down this path at least 3 times in the last few years. Must
> be people with short memories trying to make constructive comments.
>
Sure, just like cell phones vs. land lines. They're better in _some_ ways,
but Ma Bell would never have put up with a system with that terrible sound
quality and long turn-around time. Just because something is new doesn't
make it better.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353106 is a reply to message #353095] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 08:00 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday, in article <oq1qep$ck2$1@dont-email.me>
> dan1espen@gmail.com "Dan Espen" wrote:
>
>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT
>>>> > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> [...]
>>>> >>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>>> >>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days of
>>>> >> the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available is
>>>> >> far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>>> >
>>>> > However it is far less well organised as well as being more
>>>> > prone to odd gaps than in the days of yore.
>>>>
>>>> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a
>>>> big deal.
>>>
>>> I disagree. I will not use a tool (where, in this day and age, an
>>> operating system is a tool) for which I have to search the web more
>>> than once for adequate documentation
>>
>> Feel free to use what you want.
>>
>> Where did I say that anyone has to search more than once.
>>
>> Exactly how is a room full of "well organised" documentation going to
>> help anyone? I remember using well organized paper documents. I'd
>> rather type in a search term every time.
>
> You can't grep dead trees.
>
DEC, IBM, and the others employed lots of smart people whose job it was to
figure out how to present the information so it could be easily searchable.
Stuff like the exact terminology used to where the information should be
in a manual down to what a manual set needed to contain. You can't replace
collective hundreds of years of experience and training with a bot that
dumps everything helter-skelter in a heap. Saying " it's all there" isn't
helpful. This is mitigated to some extent by the experience of the searcher
in selecting combinations of search terms and weeding out useless sites.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353110 is a reply to message #353068] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 09:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > John Levine wrote:
>>>> >> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>>> >>> books.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Must not have looked very hard. Unix for Dummies has been in print
>>>> >> for a long time. Best book I ever wrote.
>>>> >
>>>> > That one was written for general users, not system administrators. One
>>>> > has to know system administration before using when one owns the system.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> > It's TOPS-10's
>>>>
>>>> No-one gives a shit. TOPS-10 is *gone*. DEC is *gone*. Minicomputers
>>>> are *gone*. Get over it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I know you don't give a shit about how we got our work done.
>>> Using DEC's doc and training standards as a basis for comparison
>>> is quite acceptable since we were very, very, very good at it.
>>
>> And so was IBM and the members of the BUNCH, yet in the days
>> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
>> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>>
>
> Much greater, but so badly organized as to be almost useless. Google a
> specific problem and most of what turns up is either a series of unanswered
> questions or some old stuff that doesn't apply to your version of the
> software or is the solution to some specialized problem that's not quite
> the same as yours.
And EXTREMELY annoying when trying to find a file missing in a distribution.
/BAH
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353115 is a reply to message #353091] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 09:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:18:31 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> yet in the days
>> of the modern world-wide-web, the amount of information available
>> is far greater than that available in the days of yore.
>
> In the same way that the amount of gold in the ocean is far greater
> than the amount of gold in my wedding ring.
>
<GRIN> Nice one.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353147 is a reply to message #353105] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 15:56 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:00:30 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> Sure, just like cell phones vs. land lines. They're better in _some_ ways,
> but Ma Bell would never have put up with a system with that terrible sound
> quality and long turn-around time. Just because something is new doesn't
> make it better.
_Personally_, I hate using my cellphone and much prefer to make calls
on a real landline. But it is clear that the rest of the world
sees it otherwise, and much prefer their cellphones. They've let their
landlines go. Now the phonecos want to kill off landlines altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353168 is a reply to message #353147] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 21:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:56:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:00:30 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Sure, just like cell phones vs. land lines. They're better in _some_ ways,
>> but Ma Bell would never have put up with a system with that terrible sound
>> quality and long turn-around time. Just because something is new doesn't
>> make it better.
>
> _Personally_, I hate using my cellphone and much prefer to make calls
> on a real landline. But it is clear that the rest of the world
> sees it otherwise, and much prefer their cellphones. They've let their
> landlines go. Now the phonecos want to kill off landlines altogether.
Landlines are the only thing, besides ham radio, that is getting
contact into and out of Puerto Rico at this time.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353228 is a reply to message #353151] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 17:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In these days of search engines and hyperlinks organization isn't a big
>>> deal.
>
>> Try looking for a movie to watch on YouTube and try that one again.
>
> Hell, try looking for a movie to watch on Comcast or Netflix, where you're
> paying for the privilege.
>
At least they group them, as does Amazon: comedy, romance, war, thriller,
etc. YouTube is just a jackdaw's nest.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: learning Unix, was progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #353542 is a reply to message #353147] |
Wed, 27 September 2017 13:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Tim Streater
In article <02d39e3c-83b0-4b6d-a32c-3f39829db974@googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:00:30 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Sure, just like cell phones vs. land lines. They're better in _some_ ways,
>> but Ma Bell would never have put up with a system with that terrible sound
>> quality and long turn-around time. Just because something is new doesn't
>> make it better.
>
> _Personally_, I hate using my cellphone and much prefer to make calls
> on a real landline. But it is clear that the rest of the world
> sees it otherwise, and much prefer their cellphones. They've let their
> landlines go. Now the phonecos want to kill off landlines altogether.
Not here they don't. In any case, how else would I get broadband
service?
--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
