Learn just enough GNU coreutils and bash to get things done.
Learn just enough Linux to get things done
51–60 of 138 posts
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Early windows development (for years after it became popular) was done at a DOS command line ... I could just as easily flip this and claim that Linux development is all backwards because it's still done on the command line. Given Microsoft's commitment to tooling, backwards compatibility and extensive documentation I think it's pretty lame to try and paint windows as not targeted towards developers. The difference…
The fact that you think a DOS command line c. 1993 and a Unix one (from, say, 1984 even!) are comparable basically ends this argument, you realize, right?
Yup you're right, the extensive argument you provided has completely convinced me of my errors. /s
The point I was making was that they're just different systems and approach things in different ways. Trying to say one is more "developer focused" than the other is a useless metric(which we'll take forever trying to define what "developer focused" even means).
One could make similar arguments about the Alto not having a command line, yet Smalltalk was incredibly powerful and focused at giving a top-tier development environment that still hasn't been match in some ways to this day.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#53And not even one mention of man pages... That is was my main resource for learning new (remembering old) commands. Maybe it's out of date now due to google, but if you're already in the terminal man is the way to go. Also, I feel like cat and less should have separate explanations as they have diverging utilities.
There's two mentions of man pages.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was Linux designed for software development? Linux was designed to emulate Unix and run the pre-existing Unix-like userspace from GNU. And absolutely yes , Unix was "designed" for software development. That's exactly what it was in its early days: a hacker playground for the geeks at Bell Labs to try new ways of doing things. And windows wasn't. Early windows development (for years after it became popular) was done…
> Early windows development (for years after it became popular) was done at a DOS command line ... I could just as easily flip this and claim that Linux development is all backwards because it's still done on the command line. Given Microsoft's commitment to tooling, backwards compatibility and extensive documentation I think it's pretty lame to try and paint windows as not targeted towards developers. The difference…
> I could just as easily flip this and claim that Linux development is all backwards because it's still done on the command line
Except that it is isn't an equivalent comparison for that point. OTOH if you made the point about GNOME etc being developed on the command line...
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#55This is not a surprise - the Windows ecosystem simply wasn't designed with software development in mind. Aha? What is C# and Visual Studio? Or .NET? Was Linux designed for software development? This article is so bad, I'm really getting mad over here. Stop publishing such crap, you feed a lot of people's resentment against all those hipster developers who don't want to learn by RTFM, but want to have handled everythi…
> Was Linux designed for software development? Linux was designed to emulate Unix and run the pre-existing Unix-like userspace from GNU. And absolutely yes , Unix was "designed" for software development. That's exactly what it was in its early days: a hacker playground for the geeks at Bell Labs to try new ways of doing things. And windows wasn't. Early windows development (for years after it became popular) was done…
What?!?
Are we talking about Windows 1.0 and 2.0 here?
I was using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ quite nice IDEs on Windows 3.x.
Windows has always been a popular development environment for the demoscene, and games developers.
The only alternatives being Mac and Amiga, none of them UNIX friendly.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over years I've heard a lot of complains on tar being hard to use, but in real-life I really ever had to use only these two commands: tar zcvf and tar zxvf. It's actually quite easy to remember: tar Zip Compress Verbose File, and tar Zip eXtract Verbose File.
Yes. I also suggest to use tar instead of the dangerous cp -r: tar c -C src . | tar x -C dst. It works over ssh connections (ssh -C for compression) and is a good training of tar syntax.
It is also quite slow.
For such moves rsync works much better.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was Linux designed for software development? Linux was designed to emulate Unix and run the pre-existing Unix-like userspace from GNU. And absolutely yes , Unix was "designed" for software development. That's exactly what it was in its early days: a hacker playground for the geeks at Bell Labs to try new ways of doing things. And windows wasn't. Early windows development (for years after it became popular) was done…
What?!? Are we talking about Windows 1.0 and 2.0 here? I was using Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++ quite nice IDEs on Windows 3.x. Windows has always been a popular development environment for the demoscene, and games developers. The only alternatives being Mac and Amiga, none of them UNIX friendly.
But... the point was that "windows" per se wasn't designed for software development. The fact that you had to buy an IDE from a separate supplier supports that point, it doesn't refute it.
In fact, as pointed out, Microsoft's own development environment (and the one used to create windows itself and most of MS's windows apps) until 1993 was a DOS command line compiler and separate editor.
No one is saying you couldn't develop "on windows" (obviously you could), but that's a rather different point than saying that windows was designed with developers' needs in mind (it wasn't).
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#58This is not a surprise - the Windows ecosystem simply wasn't designed with software development in mind. Aha? What is C# and Visual Studio? Or .NET? Was Linux designed for software development? This article is so bad, I'm really getting mad over here. Stop publishing such crap, you feed a lot of people's resentment against all those hipster developers who don't want to learn by RTFM, but want to have handled everythi…
those are not the operating system.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#59I’ve always felt there are two different kinds of Unix/Linux: sysadmin vs user. While Linux distros have been getting better and easier for many years, installing and maintaining Linux on my own machine still requires sysadmin Linux knowledge to this day.
I personally believe this is why Macs have been so popular since OSX, it’s really the only machine out there that comes with Unix but doesn’t require any sysadmin knowledge to use productively.
As soon as Linux truly reaches that same point where users can install and maintain it without needing sysadmin Linux, I think it could take over Mac’s position. And I wish it would, OSX seems to stuck in old version limbo.
Re: Learn just enough Linux to get things done
#60In my project, I maintain 3 documents. The first one is a similar list of basic linux knowledge that people should learn when arriving on the project. The second is "UnixTipsAndPitfalls" where people should add new entries when they encounter usefull commands. The third one is about tar.
Over years I've heard a lot of complains on tar being hard to use, but in real-life I really ever had to use only these two commands: tar zcvf and tar zxvf. It's actually quite easy to remember: tar Zip Compress Verbose File, and tar Zip eXtract Verbose File.
Over years I've heard a lot of complaints on tar being hard to use, but in real-life I really ever had to use only these two commands: zip and unzip. It's actually quite easy to remember: zip, and unzip.