61–70 of 91 posts
Back when I just did PHP and never used a command line having a widows box was painless. Recently I have been learning UNIX at work and Python at home and have been impressed by the lack of resources/support for working with Windows.
I suppose I should stop complaining and just blog what I've learned so far . . . though admittedly it isn't much.
Once again - another resource with almost no windows support. At least he has a todo. . . Back when I just did PHP and never used a command line having a widows box was painless. Recently I have been learning UNIX at work and Python at home and have been impressed by the lack of resources/support for working with Windows. I suppose I should stop complaining and just blog what I've learned so far . . . though admitted…
Also, CMD.exe has copy + paste, you know? You can right click to start a mark, then left click and drag. Enter performs the copy. However, it doesn't understand newlines or line wrapping, so you end up getting artificial newlines where the end of the terminal is (which is unfortunately capped at 80 chars, so if you wanted to make it bigger, you couldn't)
On page 3, about "whoami" > type this command 20 times and say it out loud I have many years of daily command line use behind me and never needed to use this command. I don't like being taken for a child.
It's not meant to be insulting, it's meant to be a method of learning the basics of a language that works. If you're insulted by it then just don't read it.
What happened: People reporting of being insulted.
So you failed, why not use the feedback to improve the thing instead of making it personal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. The tone is not for me and it sounds really put on. "The only piece of advice I am going to give you is this: Shut the hell up and type this in then try to understand it. Sorry to be mean, but that's what you have to do. You have an irrational fear of the command line and the only way to conquer an irrational fear is to just shut up and fight through it." Why say "shut the hell up"? Why assume that the reade…
Is it the word "hell" you disagree with or being told to do something? If it's "hell" I can remove that. If it's just because you don't want to be told to do something then don't read my book. You won't learn anything from it since the entire book is me telling you to do repetitive boring tasks. As for why I wrote it: You may not have an irrational fear but a huge number of Windows and OSX users do. They've been told…
Regarding the tone of the text, it's not the word hell specifically - it's the overall tone, which is echoed elsewhere. You could've said "Shut your yap..." and that would have been just as bad. Why are you browbeating or scolding your readers as though they are misbehaved children? Telling someone to shut it is condescending, dismissive, offensive, and simply rude.
It's like you're trying to help me, but you've been pushed into it and are now pissed off. And god damnit we're going to get through this one way or the other and if you have to beat me into submission and force my hand then that's what you'll do.
It's just a personal opinion. I find it makes the experience less pleasant with that kind of writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pray explain a bit in which ways my characterization of both is wrong. (As any short description, my "portrait" maybe a bit of a caricature but I believe it expresses the meaning well enough.)
"You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets." 1. All geeks learned the command line at some point. Even Linus. Calling the next Linux a "wannabee geek" is wrong. 2. basic training is for all soldiers, not just infa…
2. It was an example and he never said basic training was ONLY for infantry.
3. You say all reflexive action is pavlovian but then say that using the term pavlovian reflex is wrong. That is wrong.
4. He never indicated that basic training doesn't teach some decent things. However, it does also teach people to act on orders without thought. You may not like the reality communicated, but the reality is that one of the objectives for basic training is to indoctrinate and enforce conformity. So that when you do have to run below a shower of bombs and bullets you don't question it, you just do it.
In short, nothing he wrote was wrong. You just didn't like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets." 1. All geeks learned the command line at some point. Even Linus. Calling the next Linux a "wannabee geek" is wrong. 2. basic training is for all soldiers, not just infa…
1. If Linus is a geek (he is, isn't he?), then the next Linus is a wannabee geek. How is calling a wannabee geek a wannabe geek somehow wrong? 2. It was an example and he never said basic training was ONLY for infantry. 3. You say all reflexive action is pavlovian but then say that using the term pavlovian reflex is wrong. That is wrong. 4. He never indicated that basic training doesn't teach some decent things. Howe…
He thought otherwise, and since this the core of the issue, I believe he is wrong on the primary point.
His wording was intended to imply negative things with loose language, and if you can't see that then you can't.
I'll give one example. I said, "Grown adults are taught in a manner similar this everyday in basic training for the army."
He said, "You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets."
You claim he didn't say that basic is ONLY for infantry. True, but then I have no idea what he was saying. I said that basic is a good model for teaching reflexive action. He was responding to that, so he was either creating a straw man with the infantry thing, or he did get it wrong that basic is ONLY for infantry.
Right?
On page 3, about "whoami" > type this command 20 times and say it out loud I have many years of daily command line use behind me and never needed to use this command. I don't like being taken for a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless someone 'fessed up to it, you really have no way of knowing who did this. It could just as easily have been a drive-by script. And regardless, it was a hard, cheap, early lesson in the importance of ensuring fundamental levels of system security. I've ... suffered worse. I strongly suspect you'll never forget this.
This being more than a decade and a half ago, I doubt it was a drive-by script. I was dialed into AOL on a 4 letter screen name. I had just informed a channel of Linux users, who knew my public IP, that I had just installed Linux for the first time. The chances it wasn't someone from that IRC channel are near zero.
But scripted or not, someone did you a favor.
For a reference point, a (very technical) friend at a large tech company had to fire up a fresh Windows VM in order to complete some Windows/IE-only internal web app form.
He was p0wned within 5 minutes. On the corporate LAN. Stats I've seen are that an unpatched WinXP box (pre-SP2) was getting p0wned within 15 seconds, on average by the mid/late oughts. Scripted attacks are that fast and easy.
Scanning an IP range for open telnet ports (n00b move #1) and attempting root logins on same (n00b move #2) with weak passwords (third strike) is pretty trivial. Could have been another AOL user, could have been someone's IRC bot / autoattack.
While not blaming the victim, you discovered (on a freshly installed, no-real-data-present-yet box, hence, very inexpensively) that You Don't Do That[tm].
So: stop crying over this and put on your Big Boy pants. That asshole did you a favor. Really.
always considered myself an ace of the command line... heck for some time i even used X only for webbrowser (while cursing) and used TTY1 for vim and TTY2 for a shell where i'd run version control commands and build... but yesterday, installing debian-testing on a new notebook, the radeon cards didn't worked out even with the vesa drivers and i had to use the console for a few hours... i panicked when i realized I ha…
Really, though, wpa_supplicant seems to be the most troublesome critical wireless "primitive". Not fun command line syntax.