61–70 of 138 posts
Mentioning strace in an article titled "Learn just enough Linux to get things done" seems so out of place as to be absurd, even in an "Advanced" section. Anyone who needs the rest of this advice is going to be absolutely baffled by strace. Otherwise, decent little primer.
Even 'netstat | head -n20' is out of place for introductory Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'…
It was the way that commercial UNIX vendors started selling their SDKs, with Sun being the first one, that made people actually contribute to gcc.
I’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 k…
I'm not sure that's true. You can buy a few computers (including from Dell) with Linux pre-installed, and maintenance doesn't take a lot more than clicking on the upgrade button with the daily update-manager prompt.
I _do_ have sysadmin knowledge and find the shell more efficient than the GUI in 99% of everyday-use cases (I can't remember the last time I opened a file browser). So it's entirely possible that there's some day-to-day work required that I'm not even thinking about.
But my dad is running a Linux Mint system and I switched him to it (about ~10 years ago) because it required so much _less_ maintenance than running a Windows machine did. The number of phone calls for tech support I got from him plummeted from twice a week to zero when I switched him from Windows: I did so because I got tired of fielding constant questions about antivirus software, defragmentation, startup programs littering his systray, possible viruses installed, etc etc etc etc. It's really beyond me why anybody thinks that Windows is an appropriate OS for a non-technical user (er, or for a technical user, or really anyone who doesn't need specialty software).
https://github.com/jlevy/the-art-of-command-line
https://linuxjourney.com/
Great list for starters. But getting real work done requires much more. Having just walked through some basic steps with a novice, I can concur, modern linux is impossible without "recipes". Just setting up a hello world web app can involve: ssh login to running instance, using curl to download the gcloud sdk, tar to unpack, sudo to install, systemctl to start local processes, useradd dedicated www, chmod and chroot…
They are not meant for beginners or average people. We have Windows and MacOS for that, once you get to a point where you are thinking about linux you shoudln't be soon 'green'. Just because we have an OS doesn't mean it's meant for everybody.
Earlier 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…
> 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...
I’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 k…
> 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'm not sure that's true. You can buy a few computers (including from Dell) with Linux pre-installed, and maintenance doesn't take a lot more than clicking on the upgrade button with the daily update-manager prompt. I _do_ have sysadmin knowl…
This 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…
The true essence of delightful and plain right software development must be over in OpenBSD land, where they run the one and only gcc 4.2.1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And git does work on Windows. There's even a windows logo on the official download page. https://www.git-scm.com/downloads
The originally released Git did not run on Windows. The first Windows-compatible release was msysgit, which was effectively a mingw/msys Linux emulation layer for Windows. Not quite native, but it worked. Kind of. Not really very well at first. The current Windows download - "Git for Windows" - is still msys-based, just with a lot of compatibility/package-management/ux-polish changes. All that and the fact that recen…
"What resulted was an expansive suite of programs and utilities (collectively, software) that were written in Linux, for Linux - much of which was never ported to Windows. One example of this is the popular version control system (VCS) called git. Developers could have written this software to work on Windows, but they didn't. "
It's just wrong.