🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DCM2z5.9Ex@nntpa.cb.att.com> gupta@mrspock.mt.att.com (Arun Gupta) writes:

>In article <danpop.807226875@rscernix>, Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>>
>>I did all this switching on the Unix side.  Sorry to disappoint you,
>>but I never read any documentation for elm and pine.  They're menu driven,
>>you know?  My Unix tutorial book has a chapter about vi which contains
>>everything I needed to know about it and emacs is menu driven.  An 
>
>One of the following must be true :
>	1. You need very little from vi.

Don't think so.  I'm using it right now, since it's my preferred editor
for non-programming work.

>	2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book

This is the true one.

>	3. You are unaware of about a million features of vi.

I am aware of vi's features, even of those I don't know how to use without
opening a book, because I need them once or twice a year.
>
>>application doesn't need a GUI in order to be easy to use.  This explains
>>why the ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet by the PC's, Mac's,
>>workstations and X terminals.  BTW, their worst "enemy" here is the
>>X terminal.
>
>IMO, ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet at least in part, because they
>consume the least bandwidth of the various display solutions, and bandwidth
>is still very expensive.

Nope.  They survive because they're adequate for their jobs.  $0 
administration overhead, low maintenance costs, they don't become
obsolete in a couple of years.  These are all major advantages for those
who don't need more capabilities than a terminal can provide.

>I agree with you that an application doesn't need a GUI in order to be
>easy to use.  What it needs is consistency with the other suite of applications
>that the user is likely to use and be familiar with.

Nowadays, terminals are typically used for running a single application
(on many of them you can see this in the burnt phosphor).  Few people are
still using them for software development, except those working on IBM
mainframes.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <DCM2z5.9Ex@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Arun Gupta <gupta@mrspock.mt.att.com> wrote:
 >In article <danpop.807226875@rscernix>, Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
 >>
 >>I did all this switching on the Unix side.  Sorry to disappoint you,
 >>but I never read any documentation for elm and pine.  They're menu driven,
 >>you know?  My Unix tutorial book has a chapter about vi which contains
 >>everything I needed to know about it and emacs is menu driven.  An 
 >
 >One of the following must be true :
 >	1. You need very little from vi.
 >	2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
 >	3. You are unaware of about a million features of vi.
 >
 >>application doesn't need a GUI in order to be easy to use.  This explains
 >>why the ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet by the PC's, Mac's,
 >>workstations and X terminals.  BTW, their worst "enemy" here is the
 >>X terminal.
 >
 >IMO, ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet at least in part, because they
 >consume the least bandwidth of the various display solutions, and bandwidth
 >is still very expensive.

YOu are also forgetting that they are dirt cheap---practically disposable--and
are dead easy to program.  They are also compact, reliable and secure as
well.  You don't need to load them with software---hence no licensing
and configuration headaches---and you'd damn near have to pay thieves to
take one...

In article <danpop.807281008@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> >       2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
> 
> This is the true one.

So, you did read a manual.  I knew you had to.  On a Mac you don't have to
read a manual/book/online help, etc.  You can if you want, but I find that
just playing around with the software for a little bit helps me become
more familiar than using a manual.  Completely different story than Unix,
DOS or any other CLI.

--
Hotel California
hotelca@cris.com

>>>>> Hotel California <hotelca@cris.com> writes:
In article <hotelca-0108952347170001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:


    > In article <danpop.807281008@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan
    > Pop) wrote:
   >> > 2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
   >> 
   >> This is the true one.

    > So, you did read a manual.  I knew you had to.  On a Mac you don't
    > have to read a manual/book/online help, etc.  You can if you want,
    > but I find that just playing around with the software for a little
    > bit helps me become more familiar than using a manual.  Completely
    > different story than Unix, DOS or any other CLI.

If you just want to be a "user", you don't need to read a manual for
UNIX either. UNIX is not limited to the CLI. Here at school, people get
a default X session when they log in. Most people have no problem using
these UNIX workstations, although most people don't know and more UNIX
commands than "ls", "cp", and "rm".

The default X session gives you a list of commonly used apps in a menu,
you just have to pick one to start it. The MacOS makes it easy to
launch applications. UNIX, at least with X windows configured properly, 
can make that easy as well. The "user" doesn't have to do any of the
configuring. Things could be set up to work out of the box. Even if you
have only a text shell, I've seen some accounts where you automatically
placed in an applications menu, and you get to select the app (tin,
pine, elm, emacs, shell, etc). It's all configurable in UNIX. MacOS makes it
easy for the novice, out of the box. UNIX may require a sysadmin that
can set up something more custom/relavant to his network. But in any
case, in both UNIX, and MacOS, there are "users" who only need to know
how to start apps, and "admins" who have to know a bit more. 

Once you have started the application, ease of use is the burden of the
software, not the OS it is running on. It could be true that some UNIX
apps may not be "obvious", but Netscape on a Mac or Windows or UNIX/X11
is the same, as is WordPerfect, Matlab, etc.

Dave Hwang
martus@mit.edu

In <hotelca-0108952347170001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:

>In article <danpop.807281008@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>
>> >       2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
>> 
>> This is the true one.
>
>So, you did read a manual.  I knew you had to.  On a Mac you don't have to
>read a manual/book/online help, etc.  You can if you want, but I find that
>just playing around with the software for a little bit helps me become
>more familiar than using a manual.  Completely different story than Unix,
>DOS or any other CLI.

Pure bullshit.  Nobody is a born Mac user.  If you have never used a
computer with a GUI before, you're completely helpless in front of a Mac.
All those "intuitive" actions aren't intuitive _at all_ if you don't know
the Mac GUI philosophy.  If nobody told you about "drag and drop" and
"double click", you don't have too many chances to discover them by
yourself.

Yes, it takes longer to learn how to use a power tool than a toy tool,
but this doesn't mean that the toy tool is superior to the power tool.
It just happens that for some people the power tool is not an option at
all, so they have to use the toy tool.

Nobody became a Mac expert simply by "just playing around with the software
for a little bit" instead of reading some books.  And the Mac books have
the reputation of being rather thick.  The internals are a little bit
more complicated than the GUI.  

Those who never read the manuals are those who are unable to make
_effective_ use of their computers.  Take someone who's been using a
typewriter for 20 years and put him in front of a wordprocessor,
without any manual.  He will start using it as an electronic
typewriter, not as a word processor, because the word processing
features are not familiar concepts for him.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>hotelca-0108952347170001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:
>>Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>>> >       2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
>>> 
>>> This is the true one.
>>
>>So, you did read a manual.  I knew you had to.  

>Yes, it takes longer to learn how to use a power tool than a toy tool,
>but this doesn't mean that the toy tool is superior to the power tool.
>It just happens that for some people the power tool is not an option at
>all, so they have to use the toy tool.

Don't confuse computer science with interface theory. It just so happens that
many `easy' interfaces are fitted on relatively uncapable platforms, and
to use CPU time on the interface is to have to wait to actually do the real
work

Solving that is what client/server strategies are all about. One interface is
good for one person (based on their experience -- maybe they've been using mice
since Xerox PARC started), another interface is good or another person (can 
she type 150 words/minute (must be a Dvorak user ;)).
-- 
Mark R. Lindsey [][] Linux International's Consultants Directory Project
mark@eskimo.com [][] Mark.Lindsey@li.org          ars longa, vita brevis

PGP key fingerprint: DB 6B 9E 9F B5 F2 9B 6D  A0 BE D8 10 6B 22 8F 06

In article <danpop.807383895@rscernix>
Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

> Pure bullshit.  Nobody is a born Mac user.  If you have never used a
> computer with a GUI before, you're completely helpless in front of a Mac.
> All those "intuitive" actions aren't intuitive _at all_ if you don't know
> the Mac GUI philosophy.  If nobody told you about "drag and drop" and
> "double click", you don't have too many chances to discover them by
> yourself.

So explain the toddler who can't yet read but can start up a Macintosh,
launch MacPaint, and use it with ease.  Yes, I've witnessed it.


John Chang
Terre Haute, Indiana

email: jrchang@eworld.com | 01jrchang@bsuvc.bsu.edu
www: http://bsuvc.bsu.edu/~01jrchang/

In article <MARTUS.95Aug2055814@w20-575-33.mit.edu>, martus@mit.edu wrote:

> can set up something more custom/relavant to his network. But in any
> case, in both UNIX, and MacOS, there are "users" who only need to know
> how to start apps, and "admins" who have to know a bit more. 

No not in any case.  Most Macs don't have sysadmins.  I'd say pretty much
all Unix computers have sysadmins.  At least on a Mac I don't have to hire
sysadmins, they add so much to the price.

> Once you have started the application, ease of use is the burden of the
> software, not the OS it is running on. It could be true that some UNIX
> apps may not be "obvious", but Netscape on a Mac or Windows or UNIX/X11
> is the same, as is WordPerfect, Matlab, etc.

The OS bears alot of ease of use burden.  The Mac OS is designed so that
all apps running on it are very similar.  Ever hear of the Godsend the
Toolbox?  It's a big part of what makes Mac so easy to use and similar
across various apps, that and the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.

--
Hotel California
hotelca@cris.com

In article <danpop.807383895@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> Pure bullshit.  Nobody is a born Mac user.  If you have never used a

No, your drivel is pure bullshit. I must be nobody then.  (That is open to
debate.)

> computer with a GUI before, you're completely helpless in front of a Mac.
> All those "intuitive" actions aren't intuitive _at all_ if you don't know
> the Mac GUI philosophy.  If nobody told you about "drag and drop" and
> "double click", you don't have too many chances to discover them by
> yourself.

I discovered them by myself.  Of course I was about 12 at the time and I
know how slow older peoples minds are, they can't even program a VCR.  (I
heard that a study found about 15% of all VCRs still flash 12:00 because
the person doesn't know how to set the clock)  You discover the simple
stuff (like moving the mouse, clicking etc.) first and quickly discover
the rest with a minimum of instruction.

> Yes, it takes longer to learn how to use a power tool than a toy tool,
> but this doesn't mean that the toy tool is superior to the power tool.
> It just happens that for some people the power tool is not an option at
> all, so they have to use the toy tool.

In case you haven't noticed, a Mac is a powerful tool.  It just
masquerades as a toy tool for the newbies.  Ease of use is completely
divorced from power.

> Nobody became a Mac expert simply by "just playing around with the software
> for a little bit" instead of reading some books.  And the Mac books have
> the reputation of being rather thick.  The internals are a little bit
> more complicated than the GUI.  

Almost everything I know about using Macs (quite a lot actually) I learned
on my own without a manual by just playing around with the software to see
what it can do.  It was the second computer I had ever touched. (The first
being my old Commodore 64.  Not a smart decision on the part of my dad,
but oh well.)  

> Those who never read the manuals are those who are unable to make
> _effective_ use of their computers.  Take someone who's been using a
> typewriter for 20 years and put him in front of a wordprocessor,
> without any manual.  He will start using it as an electronic
> typewriter, not as a word processor, because the word processing
> features are not familiar concepts for him.

I make very effective use of my computer, thank you.  I am tired of your
attacks on my effectiveness with my computer.  I do things my computer
teachers can't do, all with out reading the manual for the most part.  I'm
the one they asked to design a three fold flyer for prospective students. 
And, I did it all with Claris Works.  It turned out really nice.  Also the
problem with the typist isn't learning the Mac, it's unlearning the
typewriter.

--
Hotel California
hotelca@cris.com

In article <danpop.807383895@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
 
> Pure bullshit.  Nobody is a born Mac user.  If you have never used a
> computer with a GUI before, you're completely helpless in front of a Mac.
> All those "intuitive" actions aren't intuitive _at all_ if you don't know
> the Mac GUI philosophy.  If nobody told you about "drag and drop" and
> "double click", you don't have too many chances to discover them by
> yourself.

Perhaps not all incredibly obvious at first.  However, someone who learns
a few things on a mac can quickly build the intuition to do most
everything else.  The key is that nearly everything has a common logic to
it. 

> Nobody became a Mac expert simply by "just playing around with the software
> for a little bit" instead of reading some books.  And the Mac books have
> the reputation of being rather thick.  The internals are a little bit
> more complicated than the GUI.  

Well, actually I did...  I've never sat down with a mac book, but then I'm
usually not much of a reader.  I picked things up here and there on
newsgroups and mostly just learned everything from working with the
machines.  Yes I have looked at manuals from time to time when I got
stumped.  (For example, today I learned how to remove page numbers in Word
6.  What the hell were those guy's thinking when they wrote that?!?  Not
exactly intuitive.)
 
> Those who never read the manuals are those who are unable to make
> _effective_ use of their computers.

I'd beg to differ with you there unless you're really emphasizing the
*never*.  Sure I pick up a manual when I absolutely need to but in most
instances I don't need to bother with it.  (Speaking of the mac, that is,
I *do* read my UNIX book and man pages often.)

> Take someone who's been using a
> typewriter for 20 years and put him in front of a wordprocessor,
> without any manual.  He will start using it as an electronic
> typewriter, not as a word processor, because the word processing
> features are not familiar concepts for him.

Hmm... well if he's using it as an electronic typewriter he's doing better
than some I've seen.  I've literally seen people raise their arm to smack
the side of the monitor at a carriage return and count letters to center
text.  But this is more because of too much familiarity with an old
concept than lack of familiarity with a new one.  

No I don't expect many people when set down in front of a gui based word
processor will be able to jump in and create perfect documents in an
hour.  But show them how a few key things work and they'll learn the rest
of the basics on their own.  It's not that documentation is a bad thing. 
Not at all.  But why should I have to read a manual to learn how to center
a line?  Double space my text?  And in-particular, why should I have to
read a different manual every time I use a different piece of software?

Consistency is very powerful.

                                  - Joel

In <DCpwy7.FtI@onyx.indstate.edu> 01JRChang@bsuvc.bsu.edu (John Chang) writes:

>In article <danpop.807383895@rscernix>
>Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>> Pure bullshit.  Nobody is a born Mac user.  If you have never used a
>> computer with a GUI before, you're completely helpless in front of a Mac.
>> All those "intuitive" actions aren't intuitive _at all_ if you don't know
>> the Mac GUI philosophy.  If nobody told you about "drag and drop" and
>> "double click", you don't have too many chances to discover them by
>> yourself.
>
>So explain the toddler who can't yet read but can start up a Macintosh,
>launch MacPaint, and use it with ease.  Yes, I've witnessed it.

And I explained to my boss how to use his Unix account.  The point still
remains that without any kind of help (whether it's a book, a video tape
or a knowledgeable person) the Mac is completely useless to the absolute
newbie.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In <hotelca-0308950243500001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel California) writes:

>In article <MARTUS.95Aug2055814@w20-575-33.mit.edu>, martus@mit.edu wrote:
>
>> can set up something more custom/relavant to his network. But in any
>> case, in both UNIX, and MacOS, there are "users" who only need to know
>> how to start apps, and "admins" who have to know a bit more. 
>
>No not in any case.  Most Macs don't have sysadmins.  I'd say pretty much
>all Unix computers have sysadmins.  At least on a Mac I don't have to hire
>sysadmins, they add so much to the price.

Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
Joe Unix User can't.

The home Unix user doesn't hire any kind of sysadmin, exactly like the
home Mac user.
>
>> Once you have started the application, ease of use is the burden of the
>> software, not the OS it is running on. It could be true that some UNIX
>> apps may not be "obvious", but Netscape on a Mac or Windows or UNIX/X11
>> is the same, as is WordPerfect, Matlab, etc.
>
>The OS bears alot of ease of use burden.  The Mac OS is designed so that
>all apps running on it are very similar.  Ever hear of the Godsend the
>Toolbox?  It's a big part of what makes Mac so easy to use and similar
>across various apps, that and the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.

Bullshit again.  The OS has nothing to do with the similarity of the
applications.  Many vendors of Mac apps have already proven this.

Unix has the X toolkit library and Motif to ensure similarity between
GUI based applications.  And the Xt and Motif scollbars are _correctly_
designed, unlike the brain dead Mac scrollbars.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

01JRChang@bsuvc.bsu.edu (John Chang) wrote:
>
>So explain the toddler who can't yet read but can start up a Macintosh,
>launch MacPaint, and use it with ease.  Yes, I've witnessed it.
>

And I witnessed essentially the same thing with a TI-99A.  (The machine wasn't
quite up to the MacPaint standards though. :)

When a Mac came into the house he liked that too, for awhile... These days,
Windoze quickly becomes DOS when he gets near the machine -- a little message
has shown up in my autoexec.bat: "Windoze sucks.  Press control-c if you agree."

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

>Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
>the large companies using Unix.

Yes, I agree with that.

>The life of the Mac sysadmin is made considerably harder by the fact
>that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
>Joe Unix User can't.

Right, Joe Unix User never fills the HD to the last byte, he never
makes a backup of his personal data on top of some other extremly
valuable data, he never makes the computer panic by throwing enormous
jobs at it, and he never sets up forwarded mail loops. 

Never...

-Anders
--
 Anders Sundin, Org. Chem. 2, Lund University, Box 124, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
 e-mail: Anders.Sundin@orgk2.lth.se  voice: +46 462224185 fax: +46 462228209

Dan Pop (Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:

: Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
: the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
: considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
: Joe Unix User can't.

Gee- I guess that explains why I was the sole Mac support person for a 
good-sized university, and I worked about 10 hours a week supporting 
aboua a hundred Macs, while there was an average of one unix administrator 
for every three unix machines... and I had to fill in my hours by helping 
the Windows guys do software installs, while the unix guys were always 
sweating some problem or other.

Most really large Mac installations have full-time Mac admins because 
they also have things like laser printers and other peripherals, and to 
do things like evaluate new software to see if it works, and to perform 
tasks like installing extra RAM or adding new drives.  I've never seen a 
Mac admin having to work hard at all at *any* site.

: The home Unix user doesn't hire any kind of sysadmin, exactly like the
: home Mac user.

...which is why there are so few home unix machines.  Aside from a few 
dedicated hobbyists and future Comp. Sci. majors, unix is a *tiny* 
fraction of the home market.  And until someone comes up with a way for 
someone to deal with a "home" unix machine without having to worry about 
all of the obscure details of unix administration, it won't make any 
inroads in that market, either.


-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
> Joe Unix User can't.

Large companies yes.  Many Mac networks, no.  And if Joe Mac User isn't
prevented from screwing up the machine then the Mac sysadmin must pretty
much 
be braindead.  You can get many things to protect the Macs, from making
the hard drive read only (quite easy), to buying At Ease for Workgroups.

> The home Unix user doesn't hire any kind of sysadmin, exactly like the
> home Mac user.

But the home Unix user has to have had Unix lessons.  Or have their friend
sysadmin.

> >> Once you have started the application, ease of use is the burden of the
> >> software, not the OS it is running on. It could be true that some UNIX
> >> apps may not be "obvious", but Netscape on a Mac or Windows or UNIX/X11
> >> is the same, as is WordPerfect, Matlab, etc.
> >
> >The OS bears alot of ease of use burden.  The Mac OS is designed so that
> >all apps running on it are very similar.  Ever hear of the Godsend the
> >Toolbox?  It's a big part of what makes Mac so easy to use and similar
> >across various apps, that and the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.
> 
> Bullshit again.  The OS has nothing to do with the similarity of the
> applications.  Many vendors of Mac apps have already proven this.

Microsoft is the big offender here.  However, the Mac looks the same
across apps because of the toolbox and the resources it uses.  It takes
care of all the interface work.  Microsoft chooses not to use the toolbox
or resources whenever possible.

> Unix has the X toolkit library and Motif to ensure similarity between
> GUI based applications.  And the Xt and Motif scollbars are _correctly_
> designed, unlike the brain dead Mac scrollbars.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with Mac scroll bars.  They are much
better than X scroll bars.  What about non GUI apps (the majority)?  They
are the worst offenders.

--
Hotel California
hotelca@cris.com

Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:
[snipt]
: Most really large Mac installations have full-time Mac admins because 
: they also have things like laser printers and other peripherals, and to 
: do things like evaluate new software to see if it works, and to perform 
: tasks like installing extra RAM or adding new drives.  I've never seen a 
: Mac admin having to work hard at all at *any* site.

I have. I had a friend that was sole Mac admin for the local hi-tech high 
school. 


There are 240+ Macs at this school, each of them on EtherNet. The four 
buildings are connected with T1 cable. Each of the four multi-media 
lecture halls has 2 large TV monitors hooked to the ceiling and connected 
to a QUadra, a Laser disk player, a VCR, and both the EtherNet network 
and a sepearate multi-media-dedicated T1 network (not to be confused with 
the network for the Macs).

In addition, he served as the domain admin for their internet link, and 
was the First Class E-mail admin, as well as the trainer for computer 
newbies, and was the trouble-shooter/repairman for all Apple products on 
the campus. He also conducted 2 computer classes for the students and was 
the main Mac lab monitor.


Exhausted? You might say that. He aged about 10 years in the 18 months 
that he had the job.


I'm interested in seeing how well a single administrator of 240+ brand new 
WIndows 95-designed PCs, with all-new Plug and Play peripherals, will do 
under the same circumstances...


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In <Anders.Sundin-0408950303330001@aps.orgk2.lth.se> Anders.Sundin@orgk2.lth.se (Anders Sundin) writes:

>In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>
>>Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
>>the large companies using Unix.
>
>Yes, I agree with that.
>
>>The life of the Mac sysadmin is made considerably harder by the fact
>>that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
>>Joe Unix User can't.
>
>Right, Joe Unix User never fills the HD to the last byte, he never

This is what disk quotas are for, right?

>makes a backup of his personal data on top of some other extremly
>valuable data, 

This has nothing to do with the integrity of the system.  Joe User is
shooting himself in the foot, not killing the system.

>he never makes the computer panic by throwing enormous
>jobs at it, 

Huh?  Never seen this.  Any well implemented Unix system protects itself
against this kind of "aggressions".  Our batch servers have uptimes 
measured in months.

>and he never sets up forwarded mail loops. 

Again, not a threat to the system.  If the mail delivery system is
properly configured (i.e. using a central mail server) this kind of
mistake is easily detected.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

english@primenet.com (Lawson English) writes:

<Snip>
>Exhausted? You might say that. He aged about 10 years in the 18 months 
>that he had the job.


>I'm interested in seeing how well a single administrator of 240+ brand new 
>WIndows 95-designed PCs, with all-new Plug and Play peripherals, will do 
>under the same circumstances...

How about:

Death by DOS, after a long lingering illness under Windooozzzzzz...........

Actually, Bill the Cat comes to mind  B->

Doug Rudd
------------------------------------------
The pc is like the B-52. Its technology is 
older than most of the people who use it-.
------------------------------------------

In <3vs6n2$8cr@nnrp2.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson English) writes:

>Exhausted? You might say that. He aged about 10 years in the 18 months 
>that he had the job.
>
>I'm interested in seeing how well a single administrator of 240+ brand new 
>WIndows 95-designed PCs, with all-new Plug and Play peripherals, will do 
>under the same circumstances...

If the OS is a stable variant of Unix for PC, his job will be a piece of
cake.  He'll age about 18 months in 10 years of having this job :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In <3vs410$1crj@hopi.gate.net> cirby@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) writes:

>Dan Pop (Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
>
>: The home Unix user doesn't hire any kind of sysadmin, exactly like the
>: home Mac user.
>
>...which is why there are so few home unix machines.  Aside from a few 
>dedicated hobbyists and future Comp. Sci. majors, unix is a *tiny* 

Only the Linux CD-ROM vendors report sales in the range of 40,000 copies
per month.  This is a _tiny_ fraction, compared to the Windows market,
but not to the MacOS market.  Being free software, a single CD-ROM can
be used for an unlimited number of installations.  You can install Linux
without using a CD-ROM at all, the distributions being available from
hundreds of FTP servers, as well.  And Linux is not the only free Unix for
PC's.

>fraction of the home market.  And until someone comes up with a way for 
>someone to deal with a "home" unix machine without having to worry about 
>all of the obscure details of unix administration, it won't make any 
>inroads in that market, either.

Given the fact that most home Unix machines are running a free version
of Unix, your point is moot.

Anyway, I have yet to see that administrative overhead of a home Unix
machine.  What is the "sysadmin" supposed to do, once the OS is installed?
Create a new account for his brother or son?  What else?
Regular backups are administrative overhead of _any_ operating system,
even MacOS is no exception.

The installation procedure leaves you with completely and correctly
configured Unix system.  How many Joe Mac User's even dare to install a
new version of MacOS on their systems?

I forgot: the user who fears hardware incompatibilities or other kinds
of installation problems can buy a PC with Linux preloaded.  There are
a number of vendors in this business.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

>I discovered them by myself.  Of course I was about 12 at the time and I
>know how slow older peoples minds are, they can't even program a VCR.  (I
>heard that a study found about 15% of all VCRs still flash 12:00 because
>the person doesn't know how to set the clock)  You discover the simple
>stuff (like moving the mouse, clicking etc.) first and quickly discover
>the rest with a minimum of instruction.

     As is DOS and Unix.  Commands like "copy", "erase", "ls", "move" and "<insert 
your favorite filename here>.exe(.exe optional, of course)" seem pretty simple
to me.
 
>Ease of use is completely divorced from power.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>> Nobody became a Mac expert simply by "just playing around with the software
>> for a little bit" instead of reading some books.  And the Mac books have
>> the reputation of being rather thick.  The internals are a little bit
>> more complicated than the GUI.  
>
   In defense of Hotel California, I've never, for the life of me, cracked open
my Mac Manual.  On the other hand, I've never seen my DOS manual either.  Is there
a Unix manual somewhere besides using "man" and "apropos"?  And I know that a
Windows and OS/2 manual is around here somewhere.  

>Almost everything I know about using Macs (quite a lot actually) I learned
>on my own without a manual by just playing around with the software to see
>what it can do.  It was the second computer I had ever touched. (The first
>being my old Commodore 64.  Not a smart decision on the part of my dad,
>but oh well.)  

    Lots of people do that with DOS and Unix.  Heck, I know people who have
used Macs for 10 years and still don't know that "force quit" or that the "funny
little button with the triangle on it" can turn on, shut off, and restart the 
computer.
    You do have a point, though.  As with DOS, I'm sure Unix and the MacOS have
lots of undocumented commands that you can't get by reading the manual.  I've
found several myself. 

    How many different commands are there for the Mac?  I'm looking for one 
specific one - being able to mark files much like the DOS "attrib" command, which
can mark "system file", make read-only, and hide files.

    

In <3vtk88$elu@ug1.plk.af.mil> rudd@ug1.plk.af.mil (Douglas Rudd)
writes: 

>Doug Rudd
>------------------------------------------
>The pc is like the B-52. Its technology is 
>older than most of the people who use it-.
>------------------------------------------
Yup, and just as reliable as the B-52 methinks.

--Joel Sartoris

PJ <pjuang@hawking.nhgs.tec.va.us> wrote:
 Is there
>a Unix manual somewhere besides using "man" and "apropos"?  And I know that a
>Windows and OS/2 manual is around here somewhere.  

At least for Linux/GNU there's a real manual.  It's called the source.

>    You do have a point, though.  As with DOS, I'm sure Unix and the MacOS have
>lots of undocumented commands that you can't get by reading the manual.  I've
>found several myself. 

Again, with Linux/GNU everything is there to be studied at your leasure.
No hidden trapdoors.  No questions about what the vendor might have your 
machine send through the network without your consent.  And if there's a 
bug you don't have to go to some particular vendor and beg to have it 
fixed -- if you can't fix it yourself there are plenty of others who can.

-- 
Jim Williams.

Find a Linux/GNU User Group near you: 
http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Check out: http://www.greanpeace.org/

In article <danpop.807558299@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

:In <3vs6n2$8cr@nnrp2.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson English)
writes:
:
:>Exhausted? You might say that. He aged about 10 years in the 18 months 
:>that he had the job.
:>
:>I'm interested in seeing how well a single administrator of 240+ brand new 
:>WIndows 95-designed PCs, with all-new Plug and Play peripherals, will do 
:>under the same circumstances...
:
:If the OS is a stable variant of Unix for PC, his job will be a piece of
:cake.  He'll age about 18 months in 10 years of having this job :-)

I'll bet. :)

Tom

jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:

>In <3vtk88$elu@ug1.plk.af.mil> rudd@ug1.plk.af.mil (Douglas Rudd)
>writes: 

>>Doug Rudd
>>------------------------------------------
>>The pc is like the B-52. Its technology is 
>>older than most of the people who use it-.
>>------------------------------------------
>Yup, and just as reliable as the B-52 methinks.

Keeps the people who make body bags in business.

Doug Rudd
------------------------------------------
Windows 95: Should be called windows 1984.
------------------------------------------

In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

|> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
|> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
|> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
|> Joe Unix User can't.

Having actually been a mac system support person, I can tell you that
you are making this up.  I _never_ had a problem with a user trashing
a system folder over four and a half years.  This is with some pretty
naieve users: secretaries and bosses.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com

In <405d78$dss@meaddata.meaddata.com> christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

>In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>|> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
>|> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
>|> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
>|> Joe Unix User can't.
>
>Having actually been a mac system support person, I can tell you that
>you are making this up.  I _never_ had a problem with a user trashing
>a system folder over four and a half years.  This is with some pretty
>naieve users: secretaries and bosses.

It's the "smart" users who are causing the problems, not the naive ones,
who are affraid to touch anything which is beyond their understanding.
Consider yourself lucky to have had to deal only with naive users.
Other Mac sysadmins weren't that lucky.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <405d78$dss@meaddata.meaddata.com>, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
|> In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
|> 
|> |> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
|> |> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
|> |> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
|> |> Joe Unix User can't.

Yeah.. I've never had a unix user do a rm -r *  on the entire / directory. ;)

Would you like to answer my phones from idiot users for a day?   

Not just idiot unix users.. I deal with mac and pc users also.  

My view is that it doesn't matter what type of system you have there will
always be an individual that can screw it up.  

Shane

In <40gqr9$m3v@info1.sdrc.com> crkuntz@sgcpu2.sdrc.com (Shane Kuntz) writes:

>In article <405d78$dss@meaddata.meaddata.com>, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>|> In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>|> 
>|> |> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
>|> |> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
>|> |> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
>|> |> Joe Unix User can't.
>
>Yeah.. I've never had a unix user do a rm -r *  on the entire / directory. ;)

Naive question: what is such a command supposed to do, on a correctly
installed system, when typed by Joe User?

Answer: it will remove all the files from the directories where Joe User
has write access (on some systems there are additional restrictions).
The sysadmin who gave Joe User write access to / will get exactly what
s/he deserves.

Question: how does the sysadmin protects / from an "rm -r *" mistakenly
typed by himself or other sysadmin?

Answer: touch /-i

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <danpop.808265204@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> Question: how does the sysadmin protects / from an "rm -r *" mistakenly
> typed by himself or other sysadmin?

> Answer: touch /-i

Bad answer.  That has the potential to screw up other commands.  Care to
try again?
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799
                                                office: (520) 621-1815

In article <40gqr9$m3v@info1.sdrc.com>,
Shane Kuntz <crkuntz@sgcpu2.sdrc.com> wrote:
>In article <405d78$dss@meaddata.meaddata.com>, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>|> In article <danpop.807489537@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>|> 
>|> |> Bullshit.  The large companies using Mac's do have sysadmins, exactly like
>|> |> the large companies using Unix.  The life of the Mac sysadmin is made
>|> |> considerably harder by the fact that Joe Mac User can screw his machine.
>|> |> Joe Unix User can't.
>
>Yeah.. I've never had a unix user do a rm -r *  on the entire / directory. ;)

   I've seen it happen.  I've done it, as a matter of fact.

   The torrent of error messages alerted me to my misstep and I was
able to kill the silly thing before it reached my home directory.
(The moral of the story is, of course, that even though a Unix user
can do some incredibly stupid things, it's a lot harder for them
to screw over the entire system while they're doing it.)

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ And if I could figure out why Pell is locking up every
                  \/                            28 hours, I'd be a happy man.