Future direction for Linux

08-21-2005

ITYM urban legends.

That has not been my experience.

Untrue.

BAT files are not generally where configuration data are stored. Instead you have to edit, e.g., the registry, with all the breakage attendant thereto.

And to propagate viruses. It's certainly not true if the user is concerned about security.

You mean like editing the registry? ;-)

You mean like copying or moving text in m$ word without introducing extraneous markup?

So it's better to have a c ryptic system without documention, like windoze?

No, they go for what they already have, even if it is harder.

Even if true, I see no problem with that. People deal with more complicated things all the time.

You're asking for the impossible.

Not to worry, the geeks are laughing at your misconceptions and stereotypes rather than at the new users.

Rather patronizing, what? The fact is that some windoze users are brighter than you give them credit for, and have demonstrated that by migrating to Linux. In fact, by the evidence they are brighter than you.

At least they exist. Where is the equivalent for windoze?

Then how do you explain the market ascendancy of windoze over the far more intuitive Mac?

Perhaps.

Objections that may exist *only* in your mind, and that may appear to others as straw dummies.

That's an example of the stereotypes that I was referring to.

ROTF,LMAO! It's dollars to donuts that anybody writing the above is close minded and wrong, regardless of topic.

A person with self respect would not find it necessary to buttume that anybody who disagreed with him had a closed mind.

What's stopping you?

You mean break compatibility with all of the existing programs1? It isn't going to happen, nor should it.

You don't seem to know what standardized means, and your judgement on what is intuitive is suspect.

For starters you might distinguish changes to command syntax from improvements in the documentation; they are not the same, and you can do the latter without the former.

Your question contains an buttumption contrary to fact. If you knew enough to be taken seriously then you would know why "just 'shell will *not* do. There's more than one shell.

Again, if you knew more about Linux and Unix then you'd know the answer; bash allows running legacy code written for the Bourne shell. As for Python, why do you believe that it has a better claim than, e.g., Perl, Ruby?

ITYM one more language, for those that know Bourne shell or bash and don't know Python.

Yes, it would be better to standardize them three decades ago, and to change a lot of other things three decades ago as well. It would not be a good idea to change them now.

Wrong objection. The proper objection is that too many existing programs use the existing switches on commands that they call.

You are part of we. Feel free to submit you learning aids to, e.g., TLDP.

1 Yes, commands are programs. Yes, other programs call commands.

--

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not