OSNews

OK,you've convinced me - you really have tried to avoid Unix all these years, haven't you? ;-)

You don't need a preceding ./ to access a local file; the filename does nicely. On ALL modern operating systems of significance, including Windows, "." refers to the current working directory (a most useful concept they borrowed from Unix). So if you have a file in the current directory named foo, you could access it as ./foo on Linux, .\foo on Windows, or simply foo on either one.

Windows tosses all of its files into C:\System, but then, it's a single user, local operating system. Unix and Linux are multi-user network operating systems - they segregate files into several different directories depending on purpose. /etc holds all configuration files not necessary for boot and basic system configuration. Since booting and configuring the system are unique concerns relative to normal operation, it's natural to think of all of the non-unique config data as "et cetera". But you're free to think otherwise.

When you launch vim in a modern version of Linux, you get an editing window. Those little icons at the top are buttons for the typical editing features that you would find in (say) Windows Notepad - from left to right on this computer, they are Open File, Save Current File, Save All Files, Print (separator), Undo, Redo (separator), Cut, Copy, Paste (separator), Find/Replace, Find Next, Find Previous (separator), Choose Session, Save Session, Run Script (separator), Make, Build Tags, Jump to Tags (separator), and Help. This doesn't strike me as more difficult - or indeed, much different - than Notepad (ignoring script and make support, of course - but surely you can just ignore those?).

Now, if you want to run vim within a text window, it's a bit more complicated - but ed in Windows isn't exactly a paragon of user friendliness, either! :-D

All of this is rather academic, though, since vim is not the default editor in a modern Gnome-based Linux system - gedit is.

But look, I really don't care if you want to hate Unix based on a comparison of whatever you use today compared to what you tried decades ago. Feel free. But doesn't that seem a little unfair? Just a thought.

What do you mean by "access"? If you're going to read from or write to a file in the current working directory, no path needs to be specified. If you want to execute a file (a binary or a script) from the current working directory which is not part of $PATH (the search path for programs to execute), you need to prefix it with the ./ "here" path. This makes sure you don't run the "ls" binary some hacker left in your home directory by accident. :-)

The dot infront of a filename means it's a "hidden file". Files starting with . are not listed by ls by default, you need to use ls -a to see it. To be more generic, ".* is not part of *".



It seems you should read a little bit about UNIX history. In the older versions, /etc (having the meaning "et cetera") did not only contain files for system configuration as it does today, but it did also contain "additional binaries" such as /etc/mount or /etc/fsck.

Today, some people interpret /etc as "editable text configuration" which is what it is commonly used today on UNIX and Linux: Text files for configuration of the system, its services and additional software.



Again, you should read some history. Agreed that vi is not intended to be a "word processing typewriter", it's a powerful editor. Again my statement about language applies: You have to know how to operate it in order to make full use of its power.

Some UNIX and Linux systems have a different standard editor (even though they often ship vi in the basic distribution). $EDITOR or $VISUAL can be used to configure what editor should be invoked for programs that will open a file for editing (e. g. chsh).



Yes, and what's the problem?

The problem is that you are wrong. On some Linux systems, the 1st hard drive is named /dev/hda, yes. But some Linusi use sda. BSD uses ad0, da0 or0 ada0 for the same disk, depending on how it is attached to the system (and which driver grants access to it). OpenBSD did use /dev/wd0. On other UNIXes, it's just /dev/hd0. On Solaris, it's even "more complicated" like /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0. Since disks usually use labels, there even is no need to deal with this "bare metal" kind of files. Just ignore what you don't need.



Not quite. Learning basic independently from their actual implementation is what makes a UNIX guru that powerful. He can use any system even though they are different. He has successfully learned how to deal with new situation, not being tied to strange concepts of how to do things. This flexibility is the result of learning. I know many people fear learning because it consumes their time, and they feel much more comfortable in their "just works" world. Until it stops working. Then they are helpless, having a black box that just doesn't work. And of course, they cannot diagnose problems, create workarounds or create something new. They can only consume what others have left for them. A UNIX guru can always create functionality he needs, and this is what he can do with the most limited tools. Because, you know, in worst case, when nothing works, you'll be happy for all that "ass-backward" stuff because it brings your data back, your system up and your company back into production.



UNIX has always been about development. It started its life as a development system, not as a consumer platform. This heritage is even present in modern systems that come with development tools, compilers and debuggers, with means of looking inside the back box. Free UNIX-derived systems even come with source code of all their parts. All parts of today's modern technology that consumers take for granted is somehow related to the beginnings. Do you know why the Internet works today? Because there's a lot of "old-fashioned" UNIX stuff (systems, concepts and philosophy) that keeps it running. This is not a short-term consideration as you typically see them in (home) consumer products.



What exactly do you mean? What are you missing in particular? If it's just about that you don't like it - just don't use it. It is that simple.

UNIX and Linux development has come a long way. But also recognize that much older stuff like mainframe technology or COBOL is still alive and kicking, especially in governmental use (where money doesn't matter). Could they do better? Sure! But why risk to break something that has proven to work? :-)

Plural Linusi, srsly?

Well, that's true for most things in life, yes? Since I am a 'computer guy', I can diagnose and fix most of my own issues, unless it is a hardware problem, in which case I usually take it to a repair shop, because I don't have the time nor patience to try and figure out which one of the hardware components is causing the machine to glitch or lock up.

But when it comes to cars, I don't know shit. If it breaks down, I pay a mechanic to fix it. Same with my washer and dryer, air conditioner, plumbing, television, etc. If I were a doctor, lawyer, etc, the computer would be just another appliance to me. Nothing wrong with that, really. A doctor may not know much about computers, but probably knows a hell of a lot more than we do about healing a sick person. It's just a different area of expertise. For this reason, nobody is 'better' than anybody else just because they know a lot about computers.



What I'm missing is something that's intuitive. We both know how powerful Unix is, but why can't we have something with the power of Unix, with the added benefit of being able to sit down and use it right away, without having to know that if you want to run a command named 'foo' that's in the directory you're in, you have to type './foo'. The very fact that you had to sit and type out a lengthy explanation as to why Unix works the way it works is proof positive that we can do better than that. The way something works ought to be apparent by just looking at it. It shouldn't be necesary to comprehend 30-40 years of an operating system's history just to be able to use the f**king thing and understand the way it works.

All I'm saying is that Unix is a very powerful OS, but is about as intuitive to grasp as the Chinese alphabet.

This is not true for commercial UNIX systems. Shortly after System V went commercial, GNU tools were the only way to get free compilers.

Try to get a free compiler for HP-UX, Aix or Solaris, from the compiler vendor, with an EULA that allows you to resell the software.