Learning Unix for Mac OS X Panther

Spencerian writes "Learning Unix for Mac OS X Panther is a good tool for those who are experienced with the original Mac OS or Mac OS X, but not the Unix command line. Most of the content would not interest the traditional programmer, Linux, BSD, or other UNIX jockey, however." For Spencerian's take on why, read on for the rest of his review. Learning Unix for Mac OS X Panther author Dave Taylor and Brian Jepson pages 168 publisher O'Reilly Publishing rating 8 reviewer Kevin Spencer ISBN 0596006179 summary Learning Unix for Mac OS X Panther is a good tool for those who are generally comfortable with the original Mac OS or Mac OS X, but not the Unix command line. Most of the content would not interest the traditional programmer, Linux, BSD, or other UNIX jockey, however. The Finder can't do it all, and it's a good idea to realize that today's Mac OS has more ways to force it to work than its original version. This 3rd edition of the book has a better audience focus than previous editions.

This book focuses on those of us in the Mac OS professional world who have become Unix system admins by default with the introduction of OS X, and could stand to have a handy UNIX reference nearby, particularly if the Finder freezes in Apple's latest version of their BSD/OpenStep blend of a UNIX operating system.

As the authors explain in the book, the best justification for understanding and using the UNIX components present is Mac OS X is the same as in any other UNIX-family operating system: power and control. The Finder (Mac OS X's graphical desktop manager) can't do everything, so this book provides information to help power users and technicians resolve issues, install software, or create an optimized experience, all through the Terminal.

Chapters 1 and 2 provide a very helpful tutorial on the Mac OS X Terminal application, from showing the benefits of customizing the Terminal, the concept of shells, UNIX command syntax, and other obscure but useful settings that strengthen the power of the application when accessing the BSD innards of Mac OS X. Arguably, these two chapters are the strongest guide on Mac OS X's Terminal application (as it relates to its UNIX roots) that I have seen in any Mac OS X book to date.

Chapters 3 and 4 handle understanding of the UNIX filesystem, administration and superuser access, privileges, handling external volumes, file and directory names and the like. Mac OS X, while a BSD at heart, doesn't map out everything in a traditional UNIX-style directory format--at least, not from the Finder's view. Through the Terminal, a user can see the underlying, otherwise-hidden UNIX directories. The authors go through some basic but very helpful situations such as changing file and owner permissions, which can be changed from the Finder with greater ease in Panther, but not with the same finesse as done from a command line.

The file management chapter moves readers through the classic commands for moving, editing, and copying files from the command line, which can be very helpful for administrators of Mac OS X systems who must attempt repairs by SSH, for instance, and don't have access to the usual graphical elements that generally make Mac OS usage so easy. The authors don't pick sides in the vi vs. pico debate, and just offer the basic instructions on how to use either for your editing.

The book continues with the same level of complexity that local system admins or power users require in issues such as printing via CUPS, handling processes that the Finder doesn't show, using the X11 application, using Fink (a Debian-style installation application) installing OpenOffice and GIMP, using FTP and secure shell, using Pine and Lynx, and more.

For a book of just 168 pages, the authors pack quite a bit on making a Mac OS X system work from its Terminal roots. New Mac OS X system administrators will find this book most useful, particularly if their UNIX experience is lacking or radically different from what Mac OS X presents. Experienced *NIX users who bought a new Mac may find the book a good intermediary to demonstrate how Mac OS X Panther differs from the *NIX boxen they've used in the past.

You can purchase Learning Unix for Mac OS X Panther from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

The Finder

[Anonymous Coward]

The Finder (Mac OS X's graphical desktop manager) can't do everything...

"Yes it can."
-Steve Jobs

Re:The Finder

[Frymaster]

The Finder (Mac OS X's graphical desktop manager) can't do everything...

and neither can terminal.app! lord, it's the worst terminal program i've ever used. there are, however, some good replacements.

• iterm - fast and light with tabs and other neat things. my current favourite.
• glterm - it uses opengl to render fonts. no, really. results in way better performance (although at some window sizes the text is fuzzy)

Re:The Finder

[Anonymous Coward]

nd neither can terminal.app! lord, it's the worst terminal program i've ever used.

I actually find it quite good. The only problem I have with 10.3 Terminal.app is that it is *slow*. Really slow. With my typical setup, 80x43 with antialiasing turned on, using console vim doesn't feel all that realtime anymore. I tried iTerm, but didn't like its behaviour. GLterm is out of question because "GLterm doesn't support Unicode nor non-roman scripts."

Re:The Finder

[Sigh Phi]

lord, it's the worst terminal program i've ever used.

This is unnecissarily hyperbolic. Apple's Terminal.app is fairly no-frills, but it still has some nice features, such as transforming a folder or file dropped from the Finder (or any title bar avatar) into a pathname. You can drag and copy and paste just like any other app. You can change fonts (even to non-monospace fonts). It'll emulate a number of terminals (e.g. VT-100, xterm-color, etc.) You can customize the title bar display. Set the transparency of the window itself (eye-candy). It has an unlimited scrollback buffer. It'll handle multibyte scripts (e.g. Kanji or Chinese), as well as handle a number of character encodings. It has customizable command keys.

It's leaps and bounds beyond cmd.exe. But perhaps you've had the good fortune never to have encountered that.

Re:The Finder

[WinterSolstice]

I like it. I like the transparency too. I spend about 4 hours a day in it.

I actually like it better than the company app, Reflections. (Though admittedly Reflections has its uses.) Especially once you create customized little "terminalettes" to do things like launch kword or run scripts via double-click.

-WS

Re:The Finder

[Pootie Tang]

I used to think Terminal.app was the second worse terminal program I've ever used (right behind that "telnet" program that came with windows).

It seems better now than it used to be. My main complaint was it would crash every two weeks or so (at which points you lose all your windows). I haven't had the one included with 10.3 crash yet, fingers still crossed (been using 10.3 for around 3 weeks).

And you can actually have some control over how the keyboard is mapped now too. That seemed a really lacking feature in earlier verions.

Still, I think I may check out iterm. Last time I was on the hunt for a replacement I couldn't find anything free. Tabs sound nice. If it's got copy-on-select even better.

Re:The Finder

[rolocroz]

glterm has the most horrible shareware reminder ever. It goes down in flames, making every app you have open unexpectedly quit. What a wonderful way to make people want to buy the program.

Re:The Finder

[kent.dickey]

I just use Terminal.app and xterm full time to do my work, but I thought I'd see if iterm or glterm were better.

First speed. I first did a hex-dump (using my own program) of a 5MB file. But iterm and xterm are so slow I just used a 500K file instead.

Time to display 35000 lines of 75 character hex text:
Terminal.app: 5.5sec
xterm: 9.7sec
iterm: 9.1sec
glterm: 1.8sec

So glterm is fast. Only xterm seemed to have a high-refresh rate with lots of text blurring--the rest seemed to update a lot less often which would make them faster. iTerm was uneven in its jumpiness which is quite annoying.

But the killer for me is glterm and iterm do not support page-up/page-down to scroll (you have to hit shift) which is just a non-starter for me. Since iterm has source, it could be fixed, but I don't see an advantage in using iterm for myself.

Note that xterm does not directly support page-up/page-down either, but it will if you have the following resources set (all one line with no linefeeds) in ~/.Xresources:

XTerm*VT100.translations: #override Prior: scroll-back(1,page) Next: scroll-forw(1,page)

I find Terminal.app completely adequate and fine for my work. It's way better than cmd.exe!

Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

For people used to a one button mouse? Puuuh-leeez. ;)

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Recommended new moderation categories:

-1, Mac users have no sense of humor
-1, Joke at the expnense of someone other than M$ - note 1337 M155P3||1N6!

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with paying a few bucks to replace a brand new mouse that came with the system you just paid a couple of thousand dollars for?

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, if you use the mouse that came with your off-the-shelf PC, raise your hand.

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[BiggerIsBetter]

If I'm paying a couple of thousand dollars for a new system, I shouldn't need to.

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Laur]

What is wrong with paying a few bucks to replace a brand new mouse that came with the system you just paid a couple of thousand dollars for?

And if you have a laptop?

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

USB optical Mini-mouse!

That's my TiBook solution. But I prefer using mini-mice on all laptops anyways. If you don't, at least your hands are in proper position to use control-click instead of right-click comfortably.

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[aftk2]

Au contraire...I think the one button approach works better on a laptop than a two-button touchpad (and better than a one button mouse works on a desktop.)

The reason? When using a desktop, your hand is positioned on the mouse in such a way that right-clicking is quick and simple. However, when using a touchpad, it's far easier to keep your thumb placed permanently over the left touchpad button (or the only touchpad button on an ibook/powerbook) and use your lefthand to press control when you need to get a contextual menu.

Regarding this...I have a mid-level Gateway laptop running Windows 2000...any idea of a utility that will allow me to map control-click to my second mouse button (basically Mac OS in reverse?)

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[PressReturn]

I have a powerbook and I use a USB mouse as much as possible, and not because of the one button issue - the trackpad is dead slow.

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[prockcore]

What is wrong with paying a few bucks to replace a brand new mouse that came with the system you just paid a couple of thousand dollars for?

Oh? You know how to replace the trackpad on a powerbook?

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Enahs]

I use a Logitech optical with Panther. So nyeah. :-P

Y'know, even though that was a really lame attempt at humor, you bring up a point: why do new Macs ship with one-button mice (and mice that cost at least 3x what a usable optical would cost, at that?) Am I right in thinking that NeXT machines shipped with 3-button mice? What gives?

Re:Info on vi and pico.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the NeXT machines did ship with three-button mice. I'm thinking they (well, Steve) made the decision to stick with single-button Apple mice due to the fact the entire user base was used to it. Granted, there's some unknown percentage (myself included) that have upgraded their mice, but there's also untold scads of users (as described above as being the ones who just use it for simplicity sake) that would be royally confused when they purchased their next machine to find a mouse included with all these extra buttons (and -GASP!- maybe a scroll wheel).

Perhaps we'll see an Apple-branded mice in the future though. You never know.

Apple already provides an excellent tool

[toupsie]

Apple provides an excellent tool for learning UNIX in Mac OS X, free of charge!!!

If you don't know what a command does, type "man [command]" (without the quotes, of course).

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[edalytical]

How does that help you if you don't know what command you need to use.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[grub]

One could use the apropos command for a start.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Kenja]

man mount
man finger
man touch
man slurp
man unzip

I find it best to unzip first.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[tverbeek]

Surely they meant to mod this "Funny" rather than "Informative"?

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[edalytical]

Duly noted. Still not much help if you don't already know the command.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Marxist-Leninist]

How about doing a remake of GNU? Let's say hello to MNU, Mac is not Unix.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Still not much help if you don't already know the command.

That's where whatis comes in handy.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[switcha]

Here's a nice little GUI man' app that's a little more friendly to your average GUI-lovin' Mac user (like me).

ManOpen

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Anonymous Coward]

$130 for the OS means MAN AIN'T FREE!

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[NumbThumb]

man -k (or, if you have time, man -K) is rather handy... finds you a lot of stuff, though not everything. And google is your friend... (no, really!)

But having a book that baby-steps you through the basics will defenetly help. Well at least it'll help people who do not like to learn the "just let me play with that for a weak" way, which is legitimate(sp?) i think.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Have Blue]

It's even less help if you don't know the man or apropos commands.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[rixstep]

How does that help you if you don't know what command you need to use.

If you don't know what command you need to use, you don't need to use it. Take the afternoon off instead.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Bob Davis, Retired]

Sure! Say you want to know about partitions! Just say

apropos partition

and you get a list of relevant man pages. In this case, you get two items...

fdisk(8) - DOS partition maintenance program
pdisk(8) - Apple partition table editor

Then you just type

man fdisk

and read away! This works surprisingly well, although I find OS X's whatis command to be broken, including a lot of shit that really shouldn't be there.

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Bob Davis, Retired]

And, if you can't read, type, or use a mouse how do you use a computer?

That's like saying 'Sure, driving is great. But only if you have a car.'

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this comment comes from a closet case....

Uh... An owner of a Power II? ;-)

Re:Apple already provides an excellent tool

[touch0ph]

I believe if you press 'CTRL-X' AND 'CTRL-D' you will get a listing of the available commands.

very useful

[millahtime]

I am a *nix admin and I have several friends that are OS X users that want to take advantage of the terminal/BSD side of the operating system. I am going to recommend this to all of them.

Re:very useful

[GizmoToy]

Wait, so you advocate Mac users create cron jobs instead of using scripting... and at the same time tell them to stay away from the terminal? Is it even possible to set cron jobs without that terminal? Not that I've seen...

Re:very useful

[Graff]

Personally I'd recomment that a mac user NEVER touch terminal.

In the end, the terminal is just another tool on your system. Just because someone works mainly with a GUI doesn't mean that they are not able to comprehend the command-line. Yes, the first couple of times that someone uses the command-line they are going to make some dumb mistakes but if they have a decent guide then those mistakes can be kept to a minimum and have minimal negative impact.

You might as well say that it's not worth if for a person who has never programmed to learn BASIC or C. If they don't take the first steps then how do they learn in the first place? If you are going to do anything on a computer you have to start somewhere, no matter if you are used to a GUI or not.

Re:very useful

[Amiga Lover]

Yes. It's an example of WHY they should stay away from the terminal. I've seen far too many silly mistakes done by mac users because of the lack of a commandline culture among the users.

Anyone who has come through Linux will have no problem with using a command line, and should do so.

Maybe in 10 years there will be enough experienced mac command line people to help educate the rest but until then there's going to be some awfully bad use made of terminal apps. Thankfully apple's project builder don't provide as much support for creating command line tools as gui ones, or heaven knows what kind of stuff they would be churning out

Re:very useful

[Dark Paladin]

Then how are they suppose to learn if we don't teach them?

Re:very useful

[Saven Marek]

Don't you find it hypocritical after 20 years of trying to tell us all that a computer doesn't need a CLI that mac user's are trying to use one now?

Kind of put's it all in perspective doesn't it *:o)

Re:very useful

[taybin]

This is very true. I went straight from the Mac to Linux 5 years ago. I've never looked back. It probably helped that I'm a very knowledgable computer guy though (majored in CS).

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a more appropriate question might be "do you really want a mac user using a CLI?" :)

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen mac users make the most inane scripts to do jobs they could easily put in cron jobs, and run them with infinite loops of sleeping. How much time and processor is that taking up in the end?

Sleeping consumes little or no CPU time. Except perhaps for you on your Etch-a-Sketch.

Re:very useful

[merphle]

Personally I'd recomment that a mac user NEVER touch terminal.

I'd suggest that both Mac and PC users touch two terminals: positive and negative. ;)

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

> In the end, the terminal is just another tool on your system.
> Just because someone works mainly with a GUI doesn't mean
> that they are not able to comprehend the command-line.

How true!. I've been a mac girl for 15 years or more, a choice I made from the sheer superiority of the mac gui when I started in prepress, in the 1980s. Nothing touched it then, though many other OSs have caught up and are just as usable today. It's experience that kept me employed, well paid and doing what I love. I got hold of OS X and nutted through cli stuff for a few years now, and use it sometimes and the gui sometimes. You're right, they're both tools that do a job, some can be done best in one, some best in either, and some don't matter one way or the other.

I hadn't touched a cli since DOS days, and even then I knew little more than dir, copy, cd and format. Now I co-admin my employer's non-X crippled linux servers. Most people are intelligent enough, and to me what counts more than experience is interest. I think if someone's interested enough to open terminal.app and poke around then it's just a matter of learning.

That's what brains are for, and we all have them!

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be cool would be to take all the fucking Amiga freaks and send them somewhere, anywhere, else than Earth.

Re:very useful

[Graff]

Thankfully apple's project builder don't provide as much support for creating command line tools as gui ones

Uh, sure it does. Go to File->New Project then scroll down and choose Standard Tool. Boom, a project is all set up for you to build a basic C-based command-line tool. You can also choose C++ Tool, CoreFoundation Tool, CoreServices Tool, or Foundation Tool for different libraries and programming languages.

Re:very useful

[Amiga Lover]

You might find you'll be eating those words when AmigaOS 4 is released :-).

It should be out for sale beginning or mid March, and I think the whole world is going to have to sit up and take notice.

Re:very useful

[PeterHammer]

GUI users raised and born and bred on a GUI shouldn't be mucking about in a terminal

That statement would ensure the death of the command line wouldn't it? I don't see many schools these days offering anything but Windows and Macs for students to learn on.

Re:very useful

[steeviant]

Well done, mister tar-everybody-with-the-same-brush. I fucking hate people trying to categorize me based on the fact that I use a Mac.

I don't own one because I want to join some elitist club of "creative professionals", I don't own a Mac because I think that it's somehow screwing Microsoft, I don't own a Mac because it has a candy-coated GUI, I own it because it has a solid and proven operating system derived from openstep and because it came properly set up for the hardware inside. Which for me is a prime consideration when buying a laptop.

Maybe the next laptop I buy will be x86 and Linux based again (this machine has had more than it's share of hardware failures) but OS X has always been rock solid for me, and the drivers and power management have always worked as they should, which is more than you can say for most x86 laptops even when running the OEM setup.

To me, it's just another Unix system on another flavour of hardware. Would you be telling me that I shouldn't be playing with the command line if I'd bought a SPARC laptop?

Re:very useful

[PeterHammer]

HINT: tcl it a little bit, and you will reach nirvana!

Re:very useful

[GizmoToy]

That may be true, but you're basically advocating the Mac userbase not use the terminal because they could make a mistake. By telling them to stay away from the terminal you're only perpetuating the problem, not solving it. Sure, they may make some mistakes, but they would have never learned how to do them properly if they hadn't even tried.

Let me guess... you've never fiddled around with some setting or file you probably shouldn't have, and wound up paying for it? Doubtful...

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own one because I want to join some elitist club of "creative professionals", I don't own a Mac because I think that it's somehow screwing Microsoft, I don't own a Mac because it has a candy-coated GUI, I own it because it has a solid and proven operating system derived from openstep and because it came properly set up for the hardware inside. Which for me is a prime consideration when buying a laptop.

ohhhh... so you are some kind elitist UNIX dude, huh? What Windows' simplicity in its complete lack of tools doesn't do it for you?

Re:very useful

[baryon351]

> It should be out for sale beginning or mid March

No it won't. I've used the latest builds of 4.0 and it is NOWHERE near ready. Not even close.

I'm afraid the Amiga reality distortion field (which puts steve jobs to shame) doesn't affect me. AmigaOS 4 in its current state is virtually unusable for doing anything useful. Nice for showing off some concepts, but that's about it.

Re:very useful

[geoffspear]

Well arguably they're still not providing "as much support" since with IB you can create cocoa apps without having to do much actual coding at all (especially since they added NSController in Panther), while to create a command line tool in C you need to write all that pesky C code yourself instead of linking together a bunch of objects in a GUI).

Of course, anyone who thinks it's a problem for a C programmer to be able to easily create a command line tool seems like a bit of a troll to me; how many people out there can program in C who don't know how to use a shell?

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 80's the AmigaOS blew the MacOS away. MacOS had all the good desktop publishing apps though.

Re:very useful

[sandbagger]

*Cough*

*Sputter*

A mac girl. You're like, a girl? Cool.

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

AmigaOS had excellent multitasking, something it took until Win95 to equal. Excellent OS underneath.

Unfortunately support for some of the small necessities like imaging applications and good networking were virtually nonexistent in comparison. Trying to get hardware support from commodore was always like extracting a six inch nail with a sock.

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? 1996 called, it wants its mindless optimism back.

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a hippo.

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd recomment that a mac user NEVER touch terminal.

Who wrote this? I wanna find out who it was. Gotta be the idiot of the century. This guy needs brain surgery fast and a one-way ticket out of Gene Pool to Trailer Park, Alabama.

Re:very useful

[rixstep]

GUI users raised and born and bred on a GUI shouldn't be mucking about in a terminal

Who's the troll? For this is a troll. NOBODY is that goddamned stupid or provocative.

PS. 'Bred' and 'raised' are equivalent, and 'raised and born and bred' gets the chronology AFU.

Re:very useful

[Bob Davis, Retired]

I find this comment to be hilarious. Amiga fans, wake up and smell the FUTURE! It farted when it passed you by a decade ago.

Re:very useful

[astrodawg]

There are several programs that can set cron jobs without the terminal... just have to search for them. VersionTracker Cron Search

Re:very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you only say that because you are currently located in a very strong REALITY DISTORTION FIELD_!

Can't you see it, you cannot think! Because you're inside the field! INSIDE man!

Come out, come and join us LINUX ZEALOTS.

You cannot have your own thoughts, because I don't have them, because I see everything in terms of CLANS and GROUPS. I think what others think, and cannot think own my own, therefore you cannot either!

- Ph.D. in set theory

Re:very useful

[Ben Urban]

Most people are intelligent enough

I think you might benifit from my philosophy about people...

The more people are doing something, the dumber they all become.

Here, for free

[Anonymous Coward]

man man
man cd
man pwd
man ls
man cp
man mv
man rm
man chmod
man more
man ps
man rm
man chmod
man more
man head
man tail
man grep
man passwd

Knock yourself out.

Re:Here, for free

[Lord Graga]

Yeah, they will need to read the man pages about chmod and rm twice... they are a bit slowwitted ;)

Re:Here, for free

[kfg]

Ok, I typed "man man".

Can you recommend a good book that explains its contents to me?

KFG

Re:Here, for free

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, what part of:

NAME
man format and display the online manual pages
manpath determine user's search path for man pages

SYNOPSIS
man [acdfFhkKtwW] [path] [m system] [p string] [C config_file]
[M pathlist] [P pager] [S section_list] [section] name ...

DESCRIPTION
man formats and displays the online manual pages. If you specify sec
tion, man only looks in that section of the manual. name is normally
the name of the manual page, which is typically the name of a command,
function, or file. However, if name contains a slash (/) then man
interprets it as a file specification, so that you can do man ./foo.5
or even man /cd/foo/bar.1.gz.

See below for a description of where man looks for the manual page
files.

Don't you understand?

Re:Here, for free

[kurosawdust]

I personally like the ones with homoerotic overtones: man touch man perl man unzip man units man curl man flex man tcl man gawk man paste man mount Why do I have the sudden urge to write a program called "chowder"?

Re:Here, for free

[kwerle]

Can you recommend a good book that explains its contents to me?

Man formats and displays the on-line manual pages.

If that looks familiar, it's because it's the first line of the man page.

If you're still lost, I recommend you avoid the commanline :-)

Re:Here, for free

[ianc7]

did you check to make sure that you aren't releasing any of SCO's IP before you posted?

Re:Here, for free

[kfg]

If you're still lost, I recommend you avoid the commanline :-)

And this is the sort of response that drives people actually looking to learn UNIX away.

I have been familiar with command line since it was typed out on paper.

However, to a newbie the manual page is no more intuitively decipherable than clicking on "Start" to shutdown is on Windows.

man pages are only of use to people who already know the command line. Others need it explained to them, and I have found it far more productive to provide them with that explanation than implying they're just too stupid to read the manual.

I see that my original post is now modded as flamebait for having this underlying point. If this one is also modded as flamebait I shall suffer that fate gladly in order to stick up for people who feel they need a good book and/or a bit hand holding to get them started and oppose the "RTFM" and "YTSTRTM" attitude.

KFG

Re:Here, for free

[eatdave13]

Dunno what to tell ya. I don't much care if people learn UNIX, why should I take time out of my day to help people that can't help themselves? The information is already out there. I know because I taught myself. If you (and by "you" I don't mean you personally) can't figure it out, oh well. Wait for a GUI.

Re:Here, for free

[kfg]

And if you can't learn quantum mechanics by looking up the equations in a Funk & Wagnall's, oh well, be a garbage man.

Even Einstein and Feynman found refering to a physics textbook and taking a course or two helpful.

The context here is reading a book, not your time. You don't have to post at all, let alone take the trouble to post that you aren't going to post helpfully.

People even find books helpful in letting them know that to shutdown you have to click on the "Start" button. Or course you find help in this matter by refering to the bundled documentation, but clicking on the "Start" button.

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza.

KFG

Re:Here, for free

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd that you should see homoerotic overtones. I certainly hadn't noticed.

Maybe there's another reason you can't get laid by a woman...

Re:Here, for free

[kwerle]

And this is the sort of response that drives people actually looking to learn UNIX away.

For the sarcastically impaired (you, at this point), I was kidding. That's what the smiley face is all about.

But to further the discussion: anyone who isn't willing to get their hands dirty pretty quick SHOULD avoid the commandline. After all, the commandline should not be needed for ANYTHING.

Especially on OS X.

The sooner the other *nixen realize that virtually all the books and effort put into making the commandline "easier" or "friendlier" would better be spend making nice GUI interfaces, the better off they'd be. "Learning Unix" should not require a commandline.

Re:Here, for free

[Bob Davis, Retired]

I agree. In fact, I don't know anybody who can use or comprehend a command line who didn't teach themselves. My lesson, from a good buddy a long time ago was "It's like DOS, but not retarded. Remember, ls is like dir, cd works the same way, less reads files, and programs are in /bin and /usr/bin. Type whatis * in either of those directories to get a synopsis. Use man on the program to find out how to use it. HAVE FUN!"

And I have had fun.

Re:Here, for free

[Anonymous Coward]

Man is inadequate.

I need a book like the one being reviewed. When I open a man page, it defines terms using terms that I can't look up using man. It has close to zero tutorial examples. Not to mention the number of times I tried to man something and there was nothing about it in there.

Man is strictly a reference, narrow in scope, providing little context or actual step-by-step instruction. It assumes the user already knows quite a bit about how Unix works.

You still don't get it?

Man is like using a dictionary to learn English. Oh yes, you'll learn all the words...but you won't learn grammar or composition. You won't get very far in English with just a dictionary to learn from, and you won't get very far in Unix with nothing but man pages to read.

Re:+5 insightful

[dewhite]

Anybody who knows enough about panther to enable the root account and login to a shell with that user, will know better than to enter that command line.

"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymovs Coward]

That's a new one to me. I must find some pico users to have flamewars with over that one...

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're too busy with the "pico vs nano" debate right now.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Graff]

I must find some pico users to have flamewars with over that one...

Heh, I'm a pico user but I'm not a zealot over it. I use pico when I want to do some simple, quick editing in the command-line environment. For anything more complex I use BBEdit, which does pretty much everything that vi or emacs does except with a nice GUI.

But hey, use whatever works for you. Vi is certainly powerful enough. I just can't be bothered to take the time to learn all the commands, vi has a pretty high learning curve.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[millahtime]

i use pico when i am tired cause i don't have to remember any of those pesky vi commands. plus, all that drinking in college kinda killed my memory so pico is easier to remember. wait, what was i talking about.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[strictnein]

pico rules...

there you go

Although I use nano now since it is available seperately from Pine and is released under the GPL.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. I enter things manually in hex.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

vi has a pretty high learning curve

1. Install Vim.
2. Click the vimtutor script
3. Spend about 30 minutes
4. You're up and running

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymovs Coward]

With me it's the opposite: I use emacs for complex work, and vi for quick and dirty stuff (mainly because I'm used to vi, switched to emacs relatively late...)

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats really funny

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

You had hex?

In my day it was binary. Uphill in the snow. Both ways.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[PeterHammer]

5. Remember to hit insert every damn time you need to type!
6. Realize you forgot to learn how to quit VI.
7. CTRL-Z to stop the process
8. kill the process

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Phroggy]

For anything more complex I use BBEdit, which does pretty much everything that vi or emacs does except with a nice GUI.

Hell yes. Editor of the gods. Does everything, and they're very responsive to bug submissions (and fixed bugs are listed extensively in the release notes).

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Graff]

6. Realize you forgot to learn how to quit VI.

Lol, yep. I use vi so infrequently that I ALWAYS forget this kind of stuff. That's why I use pico, at least it has the little 2-line command reminder at the bottom of the window. Like I said, vi is no doubt powerful but it gives you NO hints on how to use it. They should at least have a little status line at the bottom of the window that tells you how to get help and a few other common commands.

No doubt if you use vi a ton and know it inside and out then it is a great editor. However, I mostly use the GUI (through BBEdit as I mentioned) to do editing so I never really take the time to learn vi. And vi is so unforgiving to those who have not studied its ways...

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Shuh]

With me it's the opposite: I use emacs for complex work, and vi for quick and dirty stuff

Same here.

Compile EMACS for OSX!
EMACS binaries for OSX!

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[geoffspear]

Bah. ed(1) is the default, and therefore the best.

Any editor that needs more of a UI than "?" and printing the number of bytes in your file is just suffering from horrible feature creep, if you ask me.

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, BBEdit can't even unmorse a /. poll. Useless! :-)

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[strictnein]

Bah. ed(1) is the default, and therefore the best.

Gah! You sound like one of my professors...

Re:"vi vs pico" debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember to hit insert every damn time you need to type!

When Apple learns to get the keyboard map right for their terminal, this won't be an issue. PLEASE someone who's a bash devel guru tell Jobs how to config their terminal.

what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[Stanza]

I've gotten a shiny new iMac with OS X.3 on it, and I'm still learning the ropes. I'm slightly amazed at all the wierdnesses I can do with it, you can script almost anything with Applescript, and there's a million little details that do wierd shit, or behave as I'm not used to. So where is the Learning Mac OS X for the unix geek? The unix and mac world is so divided on the machine, yet works together seemlessly.

I haven't had my coffee yet, I'll ramble on about my experiences with Mac OS X elsewhere. But my question remains: what are good books/resources for the person who is already a unix geek?

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[mblase]

So where is the Learning Mac OS X for the unix geek?

It just so happens it's available from O'Reilly as well. The Panther edition is due out in June.

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[Luckboy]

That would be Mac OS X Panther for UNIX Geeks, listed here: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mpantherunix/

Incidentally, I had the Jaguar versions of both of these books, and found them very helpful. They're very useful, even for cross-checking each other.

Oh, and Pico rules! vi drools!

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[thehosh]

yeah ... maybe i should buy this. can't get familiar with macosx - it's so f***cking diffrent from linux (and from bsd as well).
therefore still using linux on my ibook...

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[SlamMan]

s/diffrent/good/g;

See, even us Mac users can learn.

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[NaugaHunter]

The Panther edition is out in June? Shouldn't we have OS X Cougar/Lynx/Leopard/Tiger by then, or at least soon after?

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Panther revision is due out this month, according to the link for the next edition at O'Reilly's website. You may want to hang on and check that out instead.

Re:what about Mac OS for *nix geeks?

[MoneyT]

This was on slashdot before and is a good overview:

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/

why buy

[stonebeat.org]

Using the Mac OS X Terminal (HTML) or Using the Mac OS X Terminal (PDF)

Re:why buy

[mblase]

Using the Mac OS X Terminal (HTML) or Using the Mac OS X Terminal (PDF)

Helpful for newbies, but let's face it -- those links you provided cover maybe one-half of the first chapter of O'Reilly's book.

I can be more piddly than you!

[AvantLegion]

That's a new one to me. I must find some pico users to have flamewars with over that one...

I use nano, and I flame the pico users!

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[grub]

I use nano, and I flame the pico users!

Pfff. Real men cat > filename and do it right the first time.

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hem!

In our time we only had cat > filename.tar.gz and we were happy, mind you!

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you mean...

cat | uuencode > filename.tar.gz

I highly doubt you could type a valid gzip file...

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[quigonn]

No, real man influence the entropy source of /dev/random, get the timing right and read what they want to write from said device file using dd.

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[eatdave13]

Real men use <alt> + number pad.

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[geoffspear]

Well, that's not very helpful if you're using Mac OS X.

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[Mister G]

What's this new-fangled number pad thing you're talking about?

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any time cat is used with less than two arguments, it is used incorrectly.

Real men echo > filename

Re:I can be more piddly than you!

[grub]

Umm.. That won't work. Unless you have use for a file with a single 0x0A in it...

Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admins?

[DrewBeavis]

I've seen a few of these introductory unix books for Mac admins, but what if you need something more? If you have trouble configuring Apache, the Apache website doesn't help much because OS X has files in different locations. I know how to use ls... does this or any other book get into a deeper level?

Useful information, but to whom?

[32bitwonder]

I recall being at an Apple seminar once where they had demo of a then preproduction version of MacOS X. The audience consisted of local Mac support techies as well as casual users. There were many glitches throughout the demo, and many explanations from the presenter as to why MacOS loaded so slowly etc etc. He used this time to explain to the audience that the MacOS kernel is based on Unix. I wasn't sure at the time how many people in the audience would grasp that concept, but it became painfully clear near the end of the presentation when he finished things off by opening up a terminal window. I looked around and saw nothing but stunned, confused looks on people's faces. The presenter followed by explaining how you could now use familiar unix applications like telnet and vi all within MacOS X. After then explaining to someones question regarding just what telnet and vi were, someone else followed with the question, "So...if someone on the Internet wanted to hack my computer, could they open up one of these 'terminals' and use 'telnet' to hack into my Mac?". Needless to say the presentation ended late that day, and I got the impression most of the audience left feeling rather uncertain about what just happened.

I think a Unix for MacOS publication would be useful for those migrating to Apple from some (any) other platform. For casual Mac users? No way is this going to be of any use to them. If they were so inclined, they'd already have some experience on another OS by now.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember that it used to be a standard part of Apple's advertising that "Windows Sucks. It has a command line. Ha Ha. Boy they really do suck."

So it's shouldn't be a shock that longtime Mac users have a gross adversion to commandline features.

That being said, OS X has some borderline suck, not because it has a commandline, but because there's there's a lot of tools that ship with the system (Apache, Samba, etc) that don't have a configuration GUI and must be configured "the Unix way" (which Mac users will instinctively hate).

So...if someone on the Internet wanted to hack my computer, could they open up one of these 'terminals' and use 'telnet' to hack into my Mac

This is worded stupidly, but the US Army chose MacOS for their webservers partially because it does not even have the possibility of a remote shell, which makes it much more difficult to penetrate.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[p4ul13]

" You have to remember that it used to be a standard part of Apple's advertising that "Windows Sucks. It has a command line. Ha Ha. Boy they really do suck.""

I think the taunt was moreso that win95 was just DOS with a GUI running on top of it. The fact that it had an *additional* feature in the form of a command-line wasn't the target there if I recall correctly.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[saha]

Interesting. Although, not all Mac users are what you describe above. There where a decent amount users who used Unix and classic Mac OS before OSX came out. For those users who where strictly from the OS9 and previous versions this book would be useful.

In my experience I've seen two types of large Mac user communities
(1) Mac users who want a simple OS, that is easy to use. They are not computer savvy and just want to use their machine to get the job done
(2) Unix / Mac users who hated Microsoft Windows for being neither powerful/stable nor simple/elegant to use.

Many of the people in the category (2) probably gravitated towards OSX quickly when it came out. People in category (1) waited for all their essential applications to be ported, before being forced to upgrade.
-Diganta

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[DavidLeblond]

Apache and Samba don't have GUI's on the Mac? Um, no?

Sure the GUIs they have a extremely simple but this isn't Linux you're talking about, its Mac. Its suppose to be simple. If you want to go into the conf files and tweak it, and live in the terminal window why pay extra for a mac anyway? Why not run Linux?

Mac simplifies things, but gives you the "option" to go into the terminal and screw things up.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[andreMA]

Pre-release (up to and including the public beta, at least) did use telnet as the default (but not enabled by default if I recall correctly) 'standard' means of remote CLI login.

since at least 10.1, however, it's been ssh. I suspect there's a binary for telnetd lurking somewhere in /bin or /sbin, but I've never needed to look. While ssh isn't a panacea, it's much prefered... especially as a defence against the casual packet sniffer.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[switcha]

As anecdotal as your refutal of this book is, I'll anecdotally tell you how this is exactly what I need.

I've been using Mac OS since 7, and never really used anything else (natch...I've always been in design or print production). I had to plink around in some VERY basic UNIX commands for a general computer science class in college, so I know some basic navigation and a few commands.

I have no interest in running anything but a Mac system, even just for fun, because I don't find the thought of not knowing how to do anything fun. But I'm not so stupid as to think that I can do everything I need to do in Mac OS. I've read enough tips and cool hacks and neat ways to make things work by using Terminal, that I know it would behoove me to know something beyond to basics.

If they were so inclined, they'd already have some experience on another OS by now.

So, I say BS to this. I'm inclined to learn some rudimentary stuff, but no way in hell do I care to, no imagine I could be productive in, anything else. This book sounds perfect.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[iSwitched]

"...but the US Army chose MacOS for their webservers partially because it does not even have the possibility of a remote shell, which makes it much more difficult to penetrate.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of the term 'remote shell'. I secure shell into my Mac all the time, and if I was really insane, I could even run a telnet server. Or were you referring to the fact that remote login is disabled by default?

Either way, in the interest of not spreading any more FUD about OS X and its capabilities, I'd love for some clarification on what you mean.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ad I recall just had a big image of C:\WINDOWS> prompt. Take that as you will.

And, isn't OS X isn't just Unix with a GUI running on top of it? Wasn't that the whole "advantage" of the old MacOS, that there wasn't some hidden dungeon underneath that you had to occassionally venture into?

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a big "Start/Stop Apache" button is a GUI for the service manager, not for Apache.

Mac simplifies things, but gives you the "option" to go into the terminal and screw things up.

I've got no problem with it, but my MacHead friend gave up on trying to OS X as a webserver and found it eaiser to get IIS configured on XP. Just a datapoint.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[MoneyT]

He was talking about classic OS, which unless you specificaly set up a remote login system had no shell to log into.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Phroggy]

I think a Unix for MacOS publication would be useful for those migrating to Apple from some (any) other platform.

As someone else already pointed out, that's a different book.

For casual Mac users? No way is this going to be of any use to them. If they were so inclined, they'd already have some experience on another OS by now.

If they are so inclined and want to get that experience, they can now do so without having to use another OS to get it, and this book will help them to do so.

(posted with Safari on my iBook G4, with pretty antialiased transparent terminal windows ssh'd to my Slackware boxen in the background)

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[kingLatency]

" You have to remember that it used to be a standard part of Apple's advertising that "Windows Sucks. It has a command line. Ha Ha. Boy they really do suck."" I think the taunt was moreso that win95 was just DOS with a GUI running on top of it. The fact that it had an *additional* feature in the form of a command-line wasn't the target there if I recall correctly.

Clearly you're not doing this, but people often bash OS X by bringing up this past tactic of Apple. They'd say, "You said Windows sucked because it had a command line and now you guys have one. We were right all along!" I suppose they don't realize that a UNIX command line, compared to that of Windows, is pleasant, useful and a rowdy, good time to use.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was:

C:\NGRTLTNS.W95>

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

sudo service telnet start

or: sudo service --list

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[subtillus]

That's not entirely true.

I am new to the Mac coming from windows, I'm a university student who's eager to learn wtf Unix is and how I can make it work to my advantage. The terminal application means that I can do this some of the time and still have a working machine when I'm not learning.

I tried learning on a linux box at first dual booting my machine but it was too much trouble getting basic things to work for the uninitiated.

0.02$ canadian.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

• For casual Mac users? No way is this going to be of any use to them. If they were so inclined, they'd already have some experience on another OS by now.

why? and check this...

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that one was at least funny. There were others that were more straightforward FUD.

But like I said, it's more of an issue of system design that marketing.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "We were right all along!"

Who is "we"? Most of the people I've heard complaining about OS X are Mac users.

Re:Useful information, but to whom?

[Phat_Tony]

It's true a lot of Mac users don't want to know what goes on behind the scenes (behind the finder), but this book is perfect for me and a lot other Mac geeks.

I started using the Mac with system 6.x on Mac Pluses and SE's, and have been owning/using/supporting Macs ever since. I worked in Mac tech support (not for Apple) part time in high school, and in college people came to me with their Mac problems. I knew almost everything to know about the Mac GUI- where all the control panel settings were, how to catch extension conflicts and which ones were likely, all the little-known utilities, how to mess around with programs in ResEdit and change resources. We used to use ResEdit, HexEdit, Telnet, and keystroke loggers to break into all the machines in my high school no matter what sort of stupid protection program they put on them, and for April Fool's Day we had all the computers in the Mac lab singing "99,999 Bottle of Beer on the wall" all day, and we put "Sproing" on all the cursors, and the guy in charge of the lab couldn't take any of it off all day. We had LAN parties using LocalTalk with node boxes connected to our printer ports, and shared software and played network games like Bolo. I wrote little utilities and programs with Applescript and Facespan. We upgraded the RAM, hard drives, processors, video cards, and interface cards in our machines. We had accounts on local BBS's andd traded files. First Class Client was the best. We also had freenet accounts and used the internet from 1994-99. We had access to lots of different hardware at school, and hung around after school moving components around and rebuilding machines. We segmented our HD's and ran multiple OS installations. One of my friends actually put together a (sometimes) working Mac entirely from scrap parts being tossed out. It didn't even have a case.

Anyway, we were mac geeks, and there were many of us, and I met many more in college. We'd all used PC's and some of us had used UNIX to varying degrees, but basically we only knew, owned, and used Macs.

Now OSX came out, and I feel like an idiot. Suddenly, the one line of computers I knew everything about, I know nothing about. I mean, sure, I picked up all the GUI widgets very quickly and know a lot more than the average user, but as soon as I try to get under the hood, I have no idea what's going on. That's why I'm going to buy this book. I suspect many of my old high school and college friends who have stuck with Macs will get it too.

-Phat Tony.

Re:Mac users from way back

[pdpTrojan]

Are you saying that Mac users can't learn like PC owners? That they are stuck in their ways and cannot expand their horizons?

I am sorry, but I find this is not the case.

Forgive Me Father, For I Am A Karma Whore...

[bfg9000]

... Macolytes who have a use for the command-line can really use GeekTool to improve their quality of life. See this picture for an example of its GUI goodness.

Okay, okay, so it's sitting there just churning the CPU. But it looks cool enough to get me chicks, so I figured you guys could use it too.

Re:Forgive Me Father, For I Am A Karma Whore...

[Anonymous Coward]

nice screenshot -- change the background, and with all the data flashing and shit it looks like something off a sci-fi flick. very cool...

Re:Forgive Me Father, For I Am A Karma Whore...

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent down - M.A.C. users are fags.

Unless bfg9000 is a girl - but girls do not know how to use computers. Of course, if they did, they would definitely use one of those faggy pastel M.A.C.s

Re:Forgive Me Father, For I Am A Karma Whore...

[bfg9000]

I love the tangerine iBook with a flamey flamey passion... I'm running a stripped-down YellowDog, natch.

The BSD Command Line

[SphericalCrusher]

I think it's important that MAC OS X users learn to use the UNIX command line. Even if they don't like it, they need to respect it. If it wasn't for OS X being powered by UNIX, it would not be anywhere near as stable as it is right now. I'm not "dissing" OS X, because I use it and love it, but any user shouldn't be without the knowledge required to run the UNIX command line.

Essentially, anyone that uses MAC OS X (if they don't already) will see the power of BSD and UNIX and general.. and will maybe move their PCs (unless they have MAC only) from Windows to a variation of UNIX, such as BSD or Linux.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, are you, like, 12 years old???

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it wasn't for OS X being powered by UNIX, it would not be anywhere near as stable as it is right now."

Well, I guess it wouldn't be called OS X if it weren't based on UNIX, but what makes you think that a new OS can't be stable unless it's based on UNIX?

Re:The BSD Command Line

[andreMA]

Possibly becuase there were a number of failed attempts at a "next generation" OS at Apple (Pink, Copland, Rhapsody...) that got axed.

Jobs returning to Apple along with the buyout of NeXT brought with it a strong UNIX inclination, along with a liking for the Mach microkernel. So in a sense, it was a reprieve from death for Apple... one last chance. And they pulled it off; after years of slowly shrinking market share they're seeing slow growth (depending on who you ask. Look at "installed base" rather than "sales")

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Kupek]

I think it's important that MAC OS X users learn to use the UNIX command line. Even if they don't like it, they need to respect it. If it wasn't for OS X being powered by UNIX, it would not be anywhere near as stable as it is right now. I'm not "dissing" OS X, because I use it and love it, but any user shouldn't be without the knowledge required to run the UNIX command line.

Why? Why would my parents, who only do application level stuff (web browsing, word processing, email, games), need to learn the "power of Unix"? They're non-technical end-users. They aren't concerned with harnessing the power of their machine, and nor should they have to be.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

your an idiot.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it. Apple's buyout of NeXT was merely to satisfy Job's ego over a failed business. As for the failed attempts at a "next generation" OS at Apple, we don't really if the "failure" was for technical reasons or political ones. Perhaps killing their OS project at Apple was part of the deal to bring Jobs back.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

I would add that your parents ARE in fact harnessing the power of a machine that was designed for people to use as a tool.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[andreMA]

Schiller (of Pepsi fame) had failed in the eyes of the stockholders. The buyout of NeXT may or may not have been a requirement for Jobs to return, and NeXT certainly wasn't a commercial success.

But your assertion that they killed at least 3 OS initiatives (that were consecutive, not concurrent) borders on the paranoid. If that's what you were asserting; I had difficulty parsing "As for the failed attempts at a "next generation" OS at Apple, we don't really if the "failure" was for technical reasons or political ones." [full "sentence" quoted] Don't really what?

Re:The BSD Command Line

[SphericalCrusher]

It's the same way with normal non-technical Windows users -- someday they will just want more. And if they never do, they should at least respect where the greatness of what they have comes from.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[SphericalCrusher]

Oh? How so? You can't even spell "you're" right, so how are you going to insult someone, Anonymous Coward?

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Kupek]

I think you're still missing the point. My parents don't want to write shell scripts. They don't want to monitor system usage. They don't even care enough to reorganize the icons on their desktop. They want stuff to Just Plain Work. They don't care how, they don't care why; it doesn't matter. When my mother wants to do online banking, she is not conerned at all with the computer itself. Nor should she have to. Our job is to make sure that she doesn't have to. Users like my parents view the computer as an appliance like a tv, a dishwasher, an oven or a fridge. I don't care in the least how my fridge works, and I don't "respect the greatness" of it. I put food in, the food stays relatively fresh and cold, and I stay happy. That's how my parents want to be able to view their computer.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

It should have read "We don't really know if...".

I don't have any inside knowledge of what happened at Apple, but I find it more plausible that the OS failures at Apple were management-based then the idea that Apple's software team was incapable of creating a decent OS without using NeXT technology.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[andreMA]

I don't have any inside knowledge of what happened at Apple, but I find it more plausible that the OS failures at Apple were management-based then the idea that Apple's software team was incapable of creating a decent OS without using NeXT technology.

I certainly can't argue with that. Jobs brought Schiller aboard by taunting him with "You want to sell sugar water to kids, you you want to change the world?" ... then when Jobs was booted (to go off to form NeXT) Schiller became CEO and proceded to do exactly that: try to be a competitive vendor in a commodity market. That doesn't work when you're a different architecture and OS and mindset; it failed horribly.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus fucking christ, the misinformation you've been spewing in this subthread is mind-boggling.

1. Rhapsody became Mac OS X. Rhapsody is what NEXTSTEP/OpenStep became when Apple got their hands on it. It was not a "failed" attempt, unless you consider Mac OS X to be failure.

2. Phil Schiller was not from Pepsi. You're thinking of John Scully.

Get your fucking facts straight, idiot.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[SphericalCrusher]

Then why don't your parents "be like everyone else" and just use Windows? It's easier, heh.

There is no "understanding" to the fridge, just all common sense.

Re:The BSD Command Line

[andreMA]

I stand corrected on Schiller v. Sculley. A confusion of vaguely similar names for which I apologize. The point remains; Apple had an incompetent CEO, formerly of Pepsi, in the late 1990's who presided over several abortive attempts at a new OS.

Rhapsody, however, was an abortive effort as mentioned here (descriped as a "hiccup" on the road to OS X). Some might argue that Rhapsody is/isn't a direct anscestor of OS X; again a pointless argument. Pink and Copland were certainly dead ends and the status if Rhapsody is irrelevant to my earier point.

But whatever; I've already spent more time than foul mouthed AC rates.

Re:Mac users from way back

[tverbeek]

My fondness for 4-alarm chili and stout doesn't prevent me from also enjoying a carrot and watercress salad with white wine.

Re:Mac users from way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on! Now, why are there two buttons on my mouse? I don't know which one to click!!!!

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

so is NFS...

Re:MOD DOWN! NUMBERS ARE FOR GAY SEX HOTLINES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have them memorized or did you actually call the numbers in a /. post?

vice versa?

[akad0nric0]

I'm an experienced *NIX admin who just got his first Mac (a Powerbook, and I'm hooked), and I'm struggling through what exactly *does* and *doesn't* translate from BSD to OS-X 10.3. I'd love to see a book that covers - to some degree - the differences. Anyone have a recommendation? Perhaps this book will be a close fit...

Re:vice versa?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Rosetta Stone for Unix" may help you.

http://bhami.com/rosetta.html

Re:vice versa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a link for that? Google turns up lot's of unrelated material...

Re:vice versa?

[kalidasa]

The O'Reilly OS X for Unix Geeks and Running Mac OS X books should help. The former is at Jaguar right now, the latter at Panther. There's also an OS X in a Nutshell.

Re:vice versa?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used a PowerBook with 10.1.5 on it for a while, and having previously used Linux and *bsd to some extent, the differences I noticed were minor. This was a couple of years ago, so my memory of them is a little vague. What I remember is:

- slightly different directory structure - library files are usually under /Library, core files are often under /System

- the way it did a symlink was peculiar - I only tried it once, don't remember the exact details here

That's about all I remember - I think it used a Bourne or Z shell by default.

Or better yet, enter these commands for fun...

[bennomatic]

man woman
got a light?
how would you describe George W. Bush's idiocy?
Make sure to type them verbatim, including all punctuation, hitting return after each one.

Re:Or better yet, enter these commands for fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

none of that did anything particular special or amusing. what were you trying to get at?

Re:Or better yet, enter these commands for fun...

[MrMr]

That is of course assuming you run tcsh and not bash...

Re:Or better yet, enter these commands for fun...

[Bob Davis, Retired]

And why one would run csh or any of its goatlike children is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Re:Or better yet, enter these commands for fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

beyond my ability to comprehend

Which isn't saying much.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? The funny thing is, this is actually true! If you've used OS X, and tried to do some fun CLI stuff like yr used to, you'll realize it. Sure, it can be fixed, but it should all work; it would if Appl would have stuck with convention instead of /Applications /Users and so on...

Argh! It's "Mac," NOT "MAC"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of my pet peeves. "Mac" is not an acronym, people! It's short for "Macintosh."

A computer for the rest of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all those users who switched from the PC to the Mac because it was easier to use can have the one thing that the original Mac OS couldn't deliver: a DOS-like command line interface!

Re:A computer for the rest of us?

[jdc64]

Do not compare DOS with Unix! MS-DOS / PC-DOS was never a good thing: Deceitful marketing and misinformed user choice have imposed 16 bits DOS on the rest of us for so many many years. A computer running DOS has its memory segmented into 65536 bytes (64k) segments, the memory size of a 1982 Sinclair Spectrum, just imagine how hard it must be to write software for handling a simple image file if at every pixel segment boundaries have to be be checked. Even worse, total addressable RAM was limited to 640k. The consequences of this have lasted until the end of Windows 98 (how many years to go?) Unix is a decent operating system, complex indeed but powerful, secure and not limiting in any way. I feel good about it whenever I open-up my 2000 Powerbook (I keep it ON for months) Mac users, RAM is cheap, get some and start using OS X; if you don't like how the Finder looks press the small button at the upper right window corner an it will look and behave as OS 9's; stop using MS aplications, Open Office and Mozilla are just fine multiplatform applications -> you won't feel stupid if you're ever FORCED to work with another OS. Another good thing: there are (still?) no viruses "for" OS X or Linux :)

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[andreMA]

Anyone who can't "locate httpd.conf" and find it in /private/etc/ probably shouldn't be mucking around in the file anyhow. Aside from the location of the config file, it's all the same. Of course most folks will be using the default binary, but rolling your own is pretty trivial using the included developer tools.

Re:Mac users from way back

[Kibblet]

It's only after years of experience with other operating systems, other computers, that I made the decision to switch to a Mac. Mac users I find can be very technical, just 'differently technical'. Technical doesn't mean "knows *nix". Maybe here, but not in the rest of the big wide world. . .

You forgot "man mount"

[demonic-halo]

Geez..

Can't have people going around with Unix machines without knowing how to mount their drives.

Authors read /. too

[d1taylor]

Just a quick note to say "Thanks" Kevin for your fair and unbiased review, and for the rest of you slashdotters to check out the sample chapter from the book on the O'Reilly site before you conclude that the man pages (which are quite typically incomprehensible, as they've been for years and years) are sufficient for folks to get up to speed on the command line.

Curious about other writing I've done? There's some useful free info online at 404 error page, particularly for Apache admins, and another book that slashdotters will appreciate is my Wicked Cool Shell Scripts. And, yes, Virginia, the latter includes specific scripts for Mac OS X too.

Re:Too bad

[NaugaHunter]

It's a troll because it isn't backed up. If the poster had specified which tools didn't work, it would either be marked as informative or replies could correct it. Since their are BSD and GNU tools that are known to work in Darwin/OSX, one must provide proof of the contrary or accept a Troll moderation.

man pages? Not for all commands.

[oneiros27]

Well, the thing is, Apple didn't write most of the man pages. And you'll find some little oddities -- like daemons starting up from rc that are calling flags not mentioned in the Apple supplied man pages. [eg, syslogd -s]

The real problem comes from all of those commands that apple has so kindly added and didn't bother to create man pages for. Stuff like 'disktool' and 'scselect'. Disktool gives some usage info when you call it...scselect, well...

And how many others are there out there that people haven't yet documented? [those two were mentioned in MacOS X for Unix Geeks, but I've found others that I can't recall off the top of my head that were recommended to run on webpages for configuration changes, that I just can't find documentation for]

Re:Too bad

[Phroggy]

Troll? The funny thing is, this is actually true! If you've used OS X, and tried to do some fun CLI stuff like yr used to, you'll realize it. Sure, it can be fixed, but it should all work; it would if Appl would have stuck with convention instead of /Applications /Users and so on...

You're also a troll. There is no CLI stuff under /Applications, and there's nothing wrong with using /Users instead of /home as long as getpwnam(3) works - if you're hard-coding that, you suck ass. Sure, there are conventions Apple chose not to follow, such as SysV-style init scripts; bitch about that if you want, but don't complain about non-issues.

Re:Too bad

[MoneyT]

Just so you know, the convention of /Applilcations and /Users is from NeXT, and makes logical sense when you think about it. All the unix tools are located in their standard directories (/usr/bin etc etc) but a good chunk of users aren't going to use them, they're going to use their GUI apps and such. Why would you want to put all your terminal apps in the same folder that your GUI apps are?

I have 644 items in /usr/bin, if I added them to my Applications folder, I'd have 700 items in my folder. Now as a (hypotheticaly) non CLI familiar user, why would I want to have 700 items in my folder where I put my programs when I don't use most of them? I wouldn't. So maybe I might start deleteing them, or maybe I'll make folders to organize them, or move them. And then what? What happens when I install an app that calls those programs?

That's why there's a user level set of folders that aren't the standar UNIX convention.

Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[meehawl]

Here's a question. My SO has been using an original vintage iMac with OS9 for many years. She's totally non-technical. She's heard bad things from her old Mac friends about OSX (complexity, unfamiliarity, and so on) and so now when she's thinking of getting a new machine she's inclining towards XP.

My question is this, given that a non-technical person's experienced with both OS9 and XP, which is easier? To transition completely to XP, or to attempt to learn the new and different OSX? I don't think she's ever willingly opened a command prompt in her life.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Trurl's Machine]

Tell your SO that the command line in MacOS X is required only to perform tasks he/she wouldn't want to do anyway. It's for all those computer nerds who just enjoy doing these *things*. But whatever he/she does on OS 9, he/she can also do in OS X, without never ever clicking on the Terminal icon. Tell him/her, that in OS 9 there was also something that computer nerds needed to do *things*, it was called ResEdit. Did he/she ever had to use it? Is he/she even aware of its very existence? No? Good. The same will be with the Terminal in MacOS X.

But just in case, buy him/her a book like this for next birthday or valentine. Maybe he/her will finally like it? Just imagine this kind of foreplay: you and your SO together in bed, doing *things* on two powerbooks connected via Airport...

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[christopher240240]

I have got to tell you, no matter what most Mac people say, X is an awful lot like 9 if you are just a run-of-the-mill internet, email, word processor type. But then again, so is XP. I would reccomend buying a cheapo PC with XP pre-installed and maxing out the RAM in the iMac and installing Jaguar (OSX 10.2) on it. Then network the two.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, users don't need a command line for running the same kind of applications they would run on Mac OS 9. However, if the command line is a necessity, then Mac OS X's command line is much nicer than MS Windows XP's command line.

Anyway, I've got a cheaper solution than the person who suggested moving to a cheapo PC running MS Windows XP. Just have her stay with the old Mac running Mac OS 9. Why does she need a new machine?

And actually, missing from your question is what she's planning to do with it. That has a lot of bearing on what the answer to your question is. Mac OS X and MS Windows XP are not necessarily equally appropriate for every task. Generally speaking, for games and extremely intensive office applications, MS Windows XP is better; for multimedia (photos, music, movies), the Mac is better.

It is true that many feel Mac OS X has less intuitive an interface than Mac OS 9 unfortunately, but that does not mean that it is worse than (or even as bad as) MS Windows XP. And Mac OS X Panther does have something nice that neither Mac OS 9 or MS XP have---that's expose. Furthermore, she will still be able to run her old Mac OS 9 applications on the new machines using the emulation that comes with the new Mac at no extra cost.

If she does need a new machine, then she probably should go to some store where can try out the interfaces for herself because she's the most knowledgeable expert on what is usable to her. An Apple store would be the best place to get a demonstration for the Mac because other stores usually are lacking in clerks experienced with the Mac.

However, because she will probably not be able to play around with something like configuring the networking and applications at the store, I will add that I think that MS Windows configuration is extremely difficult by comparison to Mac OS X configuration.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Quobobo]

I would not recommend that at all. It's possible to run OS X on an original Bondi Blue iMac, but it's really too slow for average use. Works nice as a server or something, but I think that a beginner would be really turned of OS X by the performance.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Quobobo]

turned off of.

I should probably look into this "Preview" button thing someday.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Anonymous Coward]

"doing *things* on two powerbooks connected via Airport..."

Just like these two...

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[wfolta]

I've heard this once or twice before and I'm stunned and speechless. I mean, yes MacOS X is somewhat different from MacOS 9. But it is WAY, WAY, WAY more like it than XP is.

To the extent that XP's GUI is reasonably well done, it is a clumsy copy of MacOS X, not MacOS 9. XP is much more complicated to administer than MacOS X is.

I mean, the "Gotta change so may as well use XP" argument is sort of like saying, "We're moving from Florida and since Southern California is so different, we may as well move to Greenland."

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Van Halen]

In my experience, there's a set of longtime Mac users who have resisted and complained about Mac OS X mostly because it's different from OS 9 and below. They've gotten very set in their ways, and any change - for better or worse - is very upsetting to them. Some of their complaints have been legitimate, in cases where the classic OS did things more intuitively than OS X. Often for these cases, Apple has tried to make OS X more like classic Mac OS in successive releases. But I've always felt that a lot of the complaining was simply because they didn't want to learn something new. These people chose the Mac way back when because it was far and away easier for them to use, and they got accustomed to it. Very, very accustomed.

So I'd guess that these old Mac friends are largely complaining due to the fact that OS X is a pretty big change from OS 9, especially when compared to the relative differences in OS versions before that. A user familiar with System 7 (or probably even System 6) would have no problem jumping right into OS 9. Not much changed in the basic user interface. In comparison, a lot of these people are finding quite a few stumbling blocks in OS X, simply because things don't quite work the same. They're finding a lot of things unfamiliar (and often seeing this as complexity) as you say. Unfamiliarity is uncomfortable, and probably moreso for people like this than for technical people like us. I'd say part of the time this is because it's really different in a particular aspect, but part of the time it's really the same but superficially different (for example OS X calls some things different names, but they work about the same -- even this small change can be bewildering to certain users).

I'd be willing to bet that her old Mac friends would be complaining 10 times as much if they were using XP instead of OS X. I think that the transition from OS 9 to OS X is far and away easier than OS 9 to XP. Not that XP is all bad; the difference is just much, much greater. A Mac running OS X is still a Mac. It looks a little different and sometimes acts a little different, but it really isn't that much different once you get used to it. I can't think of any reason why a typical non-technical user would ever have to open Terminal or anything of that sort. There will be some frustration in any change like this, but I think far less than in going to XP. But that's just my opinion.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[burns210]

you NEVER have to open a commond prompt, EVER. Besides, for a non-technical person, who is going to be tech supporting the computer, reinstalling after viruses, removing spyware, install pop-ups removers?

Trust, i have mac classic experience, moved to windows, 98 through XP. XP made me switch to something else(linux was too difficult) macs were always appealing.

I made the switch, it took about 10 minutes to get my barrings on the absolute basisics. Beyond that, I have only needed to learn when I wanted to do something new, basic computer users can learn 90% of how to use the system within the first day, no kidding.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[talo]

Why are people afraid of OSX, is it because it's unixlike? Or what? It's still the same system as it allways has been, easy to use efficient, only now it has more tools that you don't have to use if you don't want to. It may look different, but it still feels the same as OS9. You can do everything without opening the terminal, and like it is said before. If you have not used it before or anything like it. You don't need to open it.

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion - for a "completely nontechnical" user, OS X is way better than OS 6-9 ever was. The CLI is there if you want it, not because you need it. I relish the thought of gradually moving my parents away from their old desktop 603e-based machine to their new (to them) iBook G3, because it's gonna make my job as tech support guy a whole lot easier. iPhoto vs. Canon Image whatsit? Hell yeah.

I wouldn't even want to let them near XP. Hell, I can't figure it out half the time, and I'm an experienced Windows (and Unix and Mac) user & admin.

Your SO needs to stop listening to her old Mac friends and start making some new ones. ;) I will grant that up until about 10.2.something, there was truth to it, but the current Panther situation is pretty damn slick. It just works now (finally).

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[jdc64]

Just ask her: will you have viruses or no viruses? Nothing makes me more angry than uninformed OS 9 users saying bad thing of OS X they know nothing about and are just afraid of

Re:Transitioning from OS9 - XP or OSX? Easiest?

[Ohreally_factor]

The same goes for my experience with OS 9 diehards. Oftentimes, it's taken them years of experience to get OS 9 to do exactly what they want or to become OS 9 power users. They've spent countless hours tweaking their extensions and what not. The move to OS X is not just change but having to start over, and having to throw out much of their hard won knowledge.

That said, nine out of ten of these diehards really love OS X after using it for any amount of time, from a week to a month. Assuming they are able to upgrade their apps, most will avoid classic or rebooting into OS 9 after about 2 months.

There is the one in ten that seems unable to deal with OS X. I suspect in some cases, they aren't really trying it. Instead they complain endlessly about Apple has betrayed them.

the pico flamewar ...

[timothy]

the pico flamewar is not with vi -- it's with nano ;) (And luckily, it's not much of one.)

I still don't know how to do a lot of the things I got used to with pine, but I recently switched to mutt because it's faster.

However, previous to *that* switch is when I switched to nano from pico, for someone *else*'s ideological reasons :) That is, pico / pine's license isn't to the satisfaction of the debian project, but nano's is. So when I wanted a light, friendly (and apt-getable) editor, nano it was :)

timothy

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[Phroggy]

If you have trouble configuring Apache, the Apache website doesn't help much because OS X has files in different locations.

Apache's files are in different places on different flavors of UNIX or Linux distributions - and they're different still if the administrator compiled from source.

On Mac OS X 10.3, configuration files are in /etc/httpd, log files are in /var/log/httpd, DocumentRoot is /Library/WebServer/Documents, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /Library/WebServer/CGI-Executables.

On Slackware 8.1, configuration files are in /etc/apache, log files are in /var/log/apache, DocumentRoot is /var/www/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /var/www/cgi-bin.

On RedHat 9, configuration files are in /etc/httpd/conf, log files are in /var/log/httpd (symlinked at /etc/httpd/logs), DocumentRoot is /var/www/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /var/www/cgi-bin.

By default on most systems, if you've compiled from source and haven't changed any paths, configuration files are in /usr/local/apache/conf, log files are in /usr/local/apache/logs, DocumentRoot is /usr/local/apache/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /usr/local/apache/cgi-bin.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[ProfKyne]

Try Running MacOSX, which is like a younger brother to the venerable Running Linux.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of times, the configuration file stuff is hidden in netinfo. I forgot the name of it, but the netinfo GUI utility is somewhere in /Applications/Utilities. A lot of this is text usually tucked away in files in /etc on most other Unix style systems. For information on the command line interface to netinfo, start with a ``man niutil'' and also check the ``See Also'' section at the end of this man page. I think the correlation to the standard Unix /etc files should probably be pretty obvious.

Although Mac OS X does come with probably all you need to make it a server for things, I think there's not much documentation available because Apple would like to sell Mac OS X Server and they do make some documentation available for that, some of which may apply to the regular OS (I don't know). Here's some documentation I found on their page that should be applicable to regular Mac OS X as well, but it's targeted at development. Maybe you can also try Mac OS X Hints. In theory, you should be able to use FreeBSD documentation together with documentation on netinfo to figure out some of what you need, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[DrewBeavis]

Um.. its not that easy. Not everything is in httpd.conf. Specifically, I went to turn on .htaccess. On other OS's it may be in httpd.conf, but in Panther you have to edit another config file that is named differently on every system in /etc/httpd/sites, which is different behavior from even 10.2 Jaguar or 10.3 client. These are the little things that can't be explained away with "its just another unix, the files are all there just in different locations." While Apple has done a pretty good job adding comments to important files, there are still some holes that I hope someone writes a good book or how-to to fill.

I'm not a unix expert. I don't pretend to be. But that is why I want a good book that goes deeper than how to use ls-l, and is current for this version of the OS. There are probably a lot of things I shouldn't be messing with, but that is why I set up a test server at home to play with and use to learn.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[Anonymous Coward]

Phroggy wrote:

On Mac OS X 10.3, configuration files are in /etc/httpd, log files are in /var/log/httpd, DocumentRoot is /Library/WebServer/Documents, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /Library/WebServer/CGI-Executables.

On Slackware 8.1, configuration files are in /etc/apache, log files are in /var/log/apache, DocumentRoot is /var/www/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /var/www/cgi-bin.

On RedHat 9, configuration files are in /etc/httpd/conf, log files are in /var/log/httpd (symlinked at /etc/httpd/logs), DocumentRoot is /var/www/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /var/www/cgi-bin.

By default on most systems, if you've compiled from source and haven't changed any paths, configuration files are in /usr/local/apache/conf, log files are in /usr/local/apache/logs, DocumentRoot is /usr/local/apache/htdocs, and ScriptAlias /cgi-bin is /usr/local/apache/cgi-bin.

Isn't it kind of stupid how the distributions can't agree on a standard directory system?

The kernel is the hardest part of the OS to write, so the distributors have to pretend they are actually doing work, thus they waste their time "customizing" the directories.

What a waste of time.

don't be obtuse

[SideshowBob]

You don't subscribe to the false logic that every individual within a sub-group thinks exactly alike, do you? 20 years ago there were people saying that you don't need a CLI, and there were people *using* a CLI on the Mac (MPW). Today there are still some that say you don't need a CLI, and still people using CLIs (Terminal). Over that time-period some people have left the Mac world and some new people have joined it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even if you disagree (and believe me, I often disagree with other Mac users)

Try to avoid prejudice.

Well, useful to me...

[Angostura]

I was a long time Mac user in the System 6-8 days, then switched away when cooperative multitasking etc. Just got old.

I switched back specifically because of OSX - I had always wanted to learn about and tinker with Unix - run PostgreSQL, whatever - but I had never got around to it because I also needed to use Office etc, and didn't want to muck about with multiple machines, or dual-boot hilarity.. ... so its a book for me.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Open up a filemanager, Goto /usr/bin, and then proceed to eat your ignorant statement. 640 for panther, iirc that number was in the thousands with Redhat/Fedora. You CANT NAVIGATE THROUGH THAT.

Renaissance people DO exist

[fiannaFailMan]

Where does this perverse notion come from that GUI users are inhernetly incapable of using a command-line?

There's a deeper cultural thing going on here. On this site it's not uncommon to see programming-types bash (pardon the pun) users of more graphically-oriented tools (like Flash) with incredible zeal. It's as if there's some sort of Berlin Wall between creative and techinical people, and any attempt to bridge the two is doomed to failure or must be opposed.

This is nonsense.

This seperation of arts & humanities from the sciences is a relatively recent phenomonon. It's when people work with both sides of their brains that beautiful things really start to happen. Look at Leonardo Da Vinci if you want the best example. Look at the power of tools like Flash when you get people working on it to use its more powerful features like XML parsing with ActionScript, remoting, video etc. Look at musicians who can manipulate their creations electronically. Look at the animators who produce beautiful work on the big screen like Finding Nemo, Babylon 5 etc.

A lot of creative Mac people will benefit from having a deeper understanding of the way their command-line works, and if they're approaching it from a different angle than traditional Unix fans then so what? Isn't a fresh persective a good thing? Likewise I think that a lot of Unix fans could do well to visit more art galleries and explore their creative side a bit more. It may make better programmers out of them.

For the record, I work on both sides of the fence and do an equal amount of creative and technical work.

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[Anonymous Coward]

lol one of the designers at work (I keep their machines running) is a classic example of why they shouldn't be CLIing. he opened terminal and in a fit of shock at being presented with text... types quit!!!

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[Black Jack Hyde]

Where does this perverse notion come from that GUI users are inhernetly incapable of using a command-line?

Oh, I know this one. It comes from supporting about a dozen or so perverse GUI users who are incapable of using a command line. They're really good at Photoshop though.

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[rixstep]

Where does this perverse notion come from that GUI users are inhernetly incapable of using a command-line?

Uh, from teaching them for years and years and years. Those who have a real aptitude and a real appreciation will see the elegance behind the console facade; those who don't will grunt, groan, and drool until you tell them they can load a GUI, whereupon they will yell 'NOW YER TALKIN'!' and proceed to be just as dumb as before - but now with a mouse.

PS. I sure wish you would learn to spell. Your posts would be so much more inspiring then.

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[fiannaFailMan]

Two typos and you get trolled? Nice.

Surely someone who has to teach them and has been frustrated by those who don't 'get it' would appreciate books like this which attempt to rectify the problem.

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[Anonymous Coward]

can you show me how to color correct a .tif for SWOP printing using the command line? or even GIMP? didn't think so, so stop condescending already...

Re:Renaissance people DO exist

[Black Jack Hyde]

Hey AC, who's the condescending one here? Dumbass troll.

Command Line

[supe]

Anyone worth their weight as an admin spends 90%
of their time in cli shell, regardless of the OS.
So It makes *cents* to become comfortable with
the power contained within.

MOD PARENT FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

plus i dig the sig.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Please give us an example of what the heck you're talking about. Because Apple also adds tools that nicely interface the command line with the GUI, I can honestly say my experience with the shell on Mac OS X has been far better than on Linux.

What's in /Applications is the set of applications appropriate to the Mac and not appropriate to BSD/Unix/Linux, so you're full of beans there. Putting users home directories in /Users rather than whatever it is you think is the convention will not affect how other things in the system works---they're home directories, for cryin' out loud. It's certainly not going to change the fact that most people refer to home directories as ~user.

Are you trolling yourself or are you really that stupid?

Fink versus Darwinports

[ubiquitin]

Maybe the reason the book didn't cover package management is that the world of Mac OS X software installation is in flux and it would outdate the book before it hit shelves. Fink has its advantages, so does Darwinports. An explanation of both in sufficient detail is a topic that really deserves its own book.

Mod parent up.

[EarnestChameleon]

--Agreed. As in, "you cannot respect the power of your turbocharged V8 engine unless you can break it down and put it back together within an hour". What BS. Computers should be easy to use--and if you happen to be able to make them to do things above and beyond a standard user, fan-friggen-tastic. You're cool. And that probably applies to most people here who understand and "respect" the technology. But if that's not what you're trying to get out of it, it doesn't matter. For once I *disagree* with Professor Frink--Not everyone has to enjoy it on as many levels as him.

GNU Screen is better than tabs

[jeduthun]

You really ought to check out GNU Screen, which AFAIK comes with OS X by default. Screen allows you to run a number of shells or other interactive programs in a single terminal, sort of like having tabbed interface. However, Screen gives you all kinds of extra goodies with this--you can lock your session, detach it and reattach from anywhere, monitor "tabs" for silence or activity, split the terminal between one or more tabs, and so on. Better than "tabbed" terminals by far.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[Phroggy]

They're working on it - notice RedHat and Slackware use the same /var/www directory, and RedHat and Mac OS X use the same /var/log/httpd directory. Apple obviously chose their /Library/WebServer paths to be easier for GUI users (/var is hidden in the Finder). The problem is, if any distro changes their convention, they'll break compatibility with older versions of that distro.

between vi and pico/nano ...

[timothy]

there's joe, which I often find is installed on systems that don't have nano/pico.

It's not *quite* as friendly as nano/pico, but has enough similarities (and the built in status bar / help-reminder you crave) that I tend to use it when editing things like /etc/apt/sources.list on a new Debian install ...

(Of course, every UNIX system seems to have vi installed, so I wish I could remember its commands better ;))

timothy

UNIX filesystem

[rixstep]

Chapters 3 and 4 handle understanding of the UNIX filesystem

That's good, cos Macs run HFS+.

Re:UNIX filesystem

[bonch]

The directory structures and file locations, silly.

Macs in schools?

[danielsfca2]

Schools?

As long as by "Windows and Macs" you mean "Windows." The only Macs left in schools are a few original iMacs left over from when school administrators actually bought Macs, back in 1998. Nobody's buying Macs in schools now.Schools?

As long as by "Windows and Macs" you mean "Windows." The only Macs left in schools are a few original iMacs left over from when school administrators actually bought Macs, back in 1998. Nobody's putting Macs in schools anymore.

Re:Macs in schools?

[danielsfca2]

Okay, first off, I have no idea how the comment text on that got duplicated.

Second, is it really Troll to honestly state the obvious? Any fool can see that Apple's marketshare is gone and is never coming back. Once a school chooses Windows as its standard OS and bans Apple purchases (as my district did in 2002), there will be no "switching" back.

``Dell is thrashing Apple in terms of new education sales by some 35% to 21% of purchases." (Nov. 2002, source)

Education Market Share
Apple: 15%
Dell: 35%
(Sep. 2002, source)

``The trend toward standardization is hurting Apple where it has traditionally been stronger -- in schools, where information-technology workers are increasingly deciding what computers to buy, despite the protest of Mac-loyal teachers. When Quality Education Data surveyed school districts last fall, 54 percent said their schools used some Macs, while 91 percent said their schools used some Windows PCs. The number of Macs was lower than the year before.
`Apple's market share is declining steadily,' said Jeanne Hayes, president of QED. `Dell is definitely the leader now both in installed base and in share, because they've moved into the server business as well.' "
(Jul. 2003, source; this article also discusses Apple's market share in general and indicates the failure of the "Switch" campaign)

Bah. You Wussy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know the "v" in "vi" stands for visual? What could be easier than [ESC]:wq?

You people are soft!

Re:man pages? Not for all commands.

[AoT]

Theres other differences as well. I could not for the life of me get ls in color in tcsh, and i tried for hours. so frustrating.

Re:Anybody seen a hardcore unix book for Mac admin

[zorander]

My reccomendation if you're going to run apache on your mac is to build from source. The preinstalled one is pretty stripped down and the config fairly nondefault, not to mention that it's a 1.3.x version.

Building from source is pretty painless (configure,make,make install), and you can put the files wherever you want (./configure --help).

At that point, the apache docs should suit you fine. I feel like the apache configuration as shipped should be for mac's concept of "personal web sharing" only.

Brian

Re:Too bad

[prockcore]

why would I want to have 700 items in my folder where I put my programs when I don't use most of them?

That's why OSX's dock is flawed in my opinion. I've never browsed into /usr/bin, I don't have to. I install an App and it get's categorized in my menu.

Why do you have to hunt down apps on your harddrive to run them? Because OSX's dock sucks at the one thing it is meant to do, organize your applications.

No need for two buttons

[dinodriver]

But contrary to popular belief, you can get all the normal right-click functions with a one-button apple mouse. You simply push Control as you click. Most slashdotters know this of course, but many windows users don't and have to be taught it when they sit in front of a mac and start complaining.

Of course I personally throw away my apple mice right away and buy the logitech mouse with scroll wheel and two buttons, but it isn't really necessary.

Re:No need for two buttons

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't need to hold down a key when you click. That takes TWO HANDS, so it's actually LESS user-friendly than the Windows equivalent. The joy of a multi-button mouse is that you can perform multiple operation without having to simultaneously find the right key on the keyboard and click. (try this in a FPS game). Thankfully, the Mac supports most multi-button mice, like my logitech USB wheel mouse. Presumably someday Apple will wake up and realize control+click, option+click and command+click are actually more confusing than a simple multi-button mouse.

Re:No need for two buttons

[Enahs]

And just what are you doing with that other hand, me laddo?

Are you telling me that you never use the keyboard in a FPS? Mouse OR keyboard? My, you must be uncoordinated (and the worst FPS player in the world.)

Re:Too bad

[MoneyT]

The dock isn't meant to organize your applications. It's meant to provide quick access to comonly used and open programs and minimized windows.

telnetd on OS X

[rogueroo]

/usr/libexec/telnetd

Great...who exactly am I supposed to flame?

[Ben Urban]

The editors I use, in order of increasing preference:
pico
BBEdit
nano (Yes, that's right; I prefer nano over BBEdit. I'm a free software zealot.)
gedit

Terminal.app slowness

[tkanerva]

Actually, the perceived slowness is just the result of the sloppy refresh rate of terminal.app, but a MUCH MUCH worse problem is the overall cpu usage for just printing some simple stuff. try the following: run mplayer to play back some divx movie, and use top -u -s5 to watch how terminal.app is eating up to 15% of cpu just to display the stupid progress/cpu-usage messages from mplayer!

now, does anyone have a more efficient terminal? maybe xterm is still the king...

Re:Bah. You Wussy

[yarbo]

ZZ, half the keystrokes

Thanks

[meehawl]

These are all good responses, thanks very much.

For one person that said "max out the imac on RAM" - this thing is *old*. Original, no firewire, expansion slots, seriously slow. Viewing complex web pages often causes it to pause- even with lots of free RAM.

Then again, I cut my teeth on a Mac Plus so I have a whole different definition of slow-but-usable than the rest of the world.