I think the writer of the article is missing a number of critical points about Unix.
People use Unix for servers in part because of the command-line. I could be administering a server under a DoS attack with the CPU under and incredible load, and I can still securely log in and administer the box.
Administering Windows with PCAnywhere or VNC, that would be almost impossible.
Even at home, I value being able to check my e-mail and perform other useful functions on a remote box while at the same time downloading gigs of cruft over a 256K DSL connection. I also enjoy being able to work on a remote box without ever having to worry about the speed of my connection. Copying a bunch of files with
cp *.out *.bak ~/foo
is a hell of alot faster and easier than opening up Windows Explorer via VNC and cutting and pasting.
What would be of benefit would be to build hooks into commonly-used command line tools that would lend themselves easily to an event-based model. Then whoever wanted to build a GUI for these tools would be more than welcome.
Personally, I think a term that would take
cat photo.png page.html
and render the image and/or HTML on the page would be a wonderful addition to the command-line toolset. However, the ability to work in text-only mode is a critical part of the appeal of Unix.
I see this same common misperception that gave rise to this article amongst alot of non-technical business-types that wander through a Unix shop. They see the command-line and think that it looks incredibly primitive and atavistic.
What they don't realize is that there are GUI tools that do the same thing as gzip, tar, top, ls, cp, rpm, and other command-line mainstays, but that noone who uses a Unix system professionally uses them. And there's a reason for that.
If there's anyone out there who knows security like the back of their hand, there's a tremendous business opportunity to be had due to the rampant paranoia about online transaction security.
Simply start a security "brand" based on a security rating that you provide. Audit sites once a month or so, then give them a numerical score based on their security precautions. If they are deemed secure, they can place a logo of some kind indicating that they've been "certified" secure.
Sites will be happy to get the audit, and the logo, once recognized, will drive business to their site. So they kill two birds with one stone and are happier to pay for a security audit than from a firm without a publicly-recognized brand.
And the unwashed masses, who aren't quite sure how this internet thing works and are therefore a bit nervous about the whole thing, are happier to shop at sites that have the logo.
Computer consulting is like any other service in which there are significant informational asymmetries. Other examples would be auto mechanics, lawyers, and building contractors. Each of those fields one could argue are more infamously rife with unscrupulous and unsavory characters.
Among solutions to the problem in these other fields for those who solicit these services are (i) getting a second opinion and (ii) hiring an independent 3rd party with subject knowledge in an oversight capacity.
The reality we live in dictates caveat emptor; that is, it is ultimately up to the consumer of the services to protect themselves against their own lack of knowledge. If I were contracting a computer consultant knowing that there was no in-house expertise to monitor the quality of the work and the contract were for a sufficient amount to justify the expense, it would be worth it to hire a 3rd party to monitor the consultant(s). I also regularly recommend to people trying to build a technical department from scratch to hire someone with field knowledge on an hourly basis to assist in the interview process.
Fortunately for most in the U.S., my experience in the U.S. is that (perhaps due to the legacy of those wacky pilgrims, perhaps due to reputation effects), the average level of ethical behavior does seem to exceed that of other places based on reputation. (Russia and a number of developing economics spring to mind -- I hope I'm not being myopic or unfairly generalizing with that statement.)
I think that OS X and Linux can be (and should be) complements rather than substitutes.
If Apple were smart and possessed forward-looking business acumen (something they have not seemed to exhibit thus far), they would embrace the strength of the *nix and open source community and figure out how it could help their bottom line and market share.
There are cadres of *nix open source developers and open source applications out there could undoubtedly be leveraged by Apple if they were smart enough to figure out how to do it.
My desktop (GNOME) is in Danish, which I am trying to learn. (I also installed the Danish version of StarOffice.) I just do what I normally do with a Danish dictionary at my side. Even the command line responds in Danish! Having to use a Danish environment, which reinforces my knowledge of the language from necessity and repetition, is doing wonders for my vocabulary. Although I have to admit my vocabulary is a bit selective now: I can say "No such file or directory" (Ingen saadan fil eller filkatalog) much more easily than I can say "Do you know of a nice restaurant in the neighborhood."
I have used LaTeX for years for technical documentation and have never had a single bit rot on me;-) It is much more useful for organizing your thoughts in a coherent framework than HTML and even MS or other word-processing standards, and, of course, it is easily translated to HTML, PostScript, PDF, etc.
The suits think that the tech types who use it are crazy because they can't edit our documents, but it truly makes my documentation efforts more efficient.
LaTeX receives my full endorsement.
To reduce bloat, the Linux distros should look at another Open Source success: Perl and the CPAN (Comprehensive Perl Archive Network). With the CPAN module (or ActiveState's PPM - Perl Package Manager), installing a Perl module is a piece of cake. With http://search.cpan.org, finding a module from among the gajillions of Perl modules available is a piece of cake.
All the distros would need to do is include sufficient documentation that the average unsophisticated Linux user knows what's out there and how to install the free software that's available.
I would love to see technology companies (especially those who rely on open source software) sponsor well-known gurus in the open source community the way Nike sponsors celebrity athletes.
Personally, if I laid out $1000 for Damian, I would still feel like I have gotten more bang for my buck with Perl than for every upgrade of Visual Whatever++ that I've purchased in my lifetime.
When it comes to bomb-proof email running off of Unix boxes administered by knowledgeable folks, nothing beats an email account on a large campus.
Of course, paying tuition and fees just for the email would be a rather pricey proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the writer of the article is missing a number of critical points about Unix.
People use Unix for servers in part because of the command-line. I could be administering a server under a DoS attack with the CPU under and incredible load, and I can still securely log in and administer the box.
Administering Windows with PCAnywhere or VNC, that would be almost impossible.
Even at home, I value being able to check my e-mail and perform other useful functions on a remote box while at the same time downloading gigs of cruft over a 256K DSL connection. I also enjoy being able to work on a remote box without ever having to worry about the speed of my connection. Copying a bunch of files with
cp *.out *.bak ~/foo
is a hell of alot faster and easier than opening up Windows Explorer via VNC and cutting and pasting.
What would be of benefit would be to build hooks into commonly-used command line tools that would lend themselves easily to an event-based model. Then whoever wanted to build a GUI for these tools would be more than welcome.
Personally, I think a term that would take
cat photo.png page.html
and render the image and/or HTML on the page would be a wonderful addition to the command-line toolset. However, the ability to work in text-only mode is a critical part of the appeal of Unix.
I see this same common misperception that gave rise to this article amongst alot of non-technical business-types that wander through a Unix shop. They see the command-line and think that it looks incredibly primitive and atavistic.
What they don't realize is that there are GUI tools that do the same thing as gzip, tar, top, ls, cp, rpm, and other command-line mainstays, but that noone who uses a Unix system professionally uses them. And there's a reason for that.
If there's anyone out there who knows security like the back of their hand, there's a tremendous business opportunity to be had due to the rampant paranoia about online transaction security.
:-)
Simply start a security "brand" based on a security rating that you provide. Audit sites once a month or so, then give them a numerical score based on their security precautions. If they are deemed secure, they can place a logo of some kind indicating that they've been "certified" secure.
Sites will be happy to get the audit, and the logo, once recognized, will drive business to their site. So they kill two birds with one stone and are happier to pay for a security audit than from a firm without a publicly-recognized brand.
And the unwashed masses, who aren't quite sure how this internet thing works and are therefore a bit nervous about the whole thing, are happier to shop at sites that have the logo.
A million dollar idea, folks. Yours for free
Computer consulting is like any other service in which there are significant informational asymmetries. Other examples would be auto mechanics, lawyers, and building contractors. Each of those fields one could argue are more infamously rife with unscrupulous and unsavory characters.
Among solutions to the problem in these other fields for those who solicit these services are (i) getting a second opinion and (ii) hiring an independent 3rd party with subject knowledge in an oversight capacity.
The reality we live in dictates caveat emptor; that is, it is ultimately up to the consumer of the services to protect themselves against their own lack of knowledge. If I were contracting a computer consultant knowing that there was no in-house expertise to monitor the quality of the work and the contract were for a sufficient amount to justify the expense, it would be worth it to hire a 3rd party to monitor the consultant(s). I also regularly recommend to people trying to build a technical department from scratch to hire someone with field knowledge on an hourly basis to assist in the interview process.
Fortunately for most in the U.S., my experience in the U.S. is that (perhaps due to the legacy of those wacky pilgrims, perhaps due to reputation effects), the average level of ethical behavior does seem to exceed that of other places based on reputation. (Russia and a number of developing economics spring to mind -- I hope I'm not being myopic or unfairly generalizing with that statement.)
Have you ever heard of a statement? Geez.
I think that OS X and Linux can be (and should be) complements rather than substitutes. If Apple were smart and possessed forward-looking business acumen (something they have not seemed to exhibit thus far), they would embrace the strength of the *nix and open source community and figure out how it could help their bottom line and market share. There are cadres of *nix open source developers and open source applications out there could undoubtedly be leveraged by Apple if they were smart enough to figure out how to do it.
My desktop (GNOME) is in Danish, which I am trying to learn. (I also installed the Danish version of StarOffice.) I just do what I normally do with a Danish dictionary at my side. Even the command line responds in Danish! Having to use a Danish environment, which reinforces my knowledge of the language from necessity and repetition, is doing wonders for my vocabulary. Although I have to admit my vocabulary is a bit selective now: I can say "No such file or directory" (Ingen saadan fil eller filkatalog) much more easily than I can say "Do you know of a nice restaurant in the neighborhood."
I have used LaTeX for years for technical documentation and have never had a single bit rot on me ;-) It is much more useful for organizing your thoughts in a coherent framework than HTML and even MS or other word-processing standards, and, of course, it is easily translated to HTML, PostScript, PDF, etc.
The suits think that the tech types who use it are crazy because they can't edit our documents, but it truly makes my documentation efforts more efficient.
LaTeX receives my full endorsement.
To reduce bloat, the Linux distros should look at another Open Source success: Perl and the CPAN (Comprehensive Perl Archive Network). With the CPAN module (or ActiveState's PPM - Perl Package Manager), installing a Perl module is a piece of cake. With http://search.cpan.org, finding a module from among the gajillions of Perl modules available is a piece of cake. All the distros would need to do is include sufficient documentation that the average unsophisticated Linux user knows what's out there and how to install the free software that's available.
I would love to see technology companies (especially those who rely on open source software) sponsor well-known gurus in the open source community the way Nike sponsors celebrity athletes. Personally, if I laid out $1000 for Damian, I would still feel like I have gotten more bang for my buck with Perl than for every upgrade of Visual Whatever++ that I've purchased in my lifetime.
When it comes to bomb-proof email running off of Unix boxes administered by knowledgeable folks, nothing beats an email account on a large campus. Of course, paying tuition and fees just for the email would be a rather pricey proposition.