Minimalism run amok - SCO

This is a discussion on Minimalism run amok - SCO ; Here's another episode in my adventures with learning Osr 5: I was just about ready to declare a new server ready for production when I thought, "It would be a good idea to do a filesystem check first". I ran ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Minimalism run amok

  1. Minimalism run amok

    Here's another episode in my adventures with learning Osr 5:

    I was just about ready to declare a new server ready for production when I
    thought, "It would be a good idea to do a filesystem check first". I ran
    fsck and was told that there was one problem and asked if I wished to
    correct it. I was surprised but replied "yes", and to my surprise this
    continued 'til I hit Delete (why not ctrl-C like the rest of the world?).

    Then I examined the fsck man pages, which, far down the text, mentioned that
    when checking the /root filesystem, no other filesystems should be mounted.

    I ask, "Why?" Did the fsck programmer run out of time to complete the
    program?

    I like compact code as much or more than most people, but how many hundreds
    of bytes would be needed to add checks in fsck to ensure that no other
    filesystems were mounted before checking /root and display at least a
    warning.

    Luckily, I have both disk image and tape backups, so the fact that I, with
    the assistance of fsck, damaged a filesystem (I think that it was a small
    DOS partition that was mounted at the time) isn't a major problem.

    This, for me, is one more sour experience that has led me to conclude that
    Osr 5 is garbage and deserves to die.

    /rant off



  2. Re: Minimalism run amok

    In article ,
    Arby wrote:
    >Here's another episode in my adventures with learning Osr 5:


    >I was just about ready to declare a new server ready for
    >production when I thought, "It would be a good idea to do a
    >filesystem check first". I ran fsck and was told that there was
    >one problem and asked if I wished to correct it. I was surprised
    >but replied "yes", and to my surprise this continued 'til I hit
    >Delete (why not ctrl-C like the rest of the world?).


    >Then I examined the fsck man pages, which, far down the text,
    >mentioned that when checking the /root filesystem, no other
    >filesystems should be mounted.


    >I ask, "Why?" Did the fsck programmer run out of time to complete the
    >program?


    That's the way ALL unix system work. Since / [not /root] contains
    vital information for all the other file systems you really don't
    want to have those mounted. On an abnormal shutdown/power-off all
    file-systems will be checked automatically - and will only halt if
    there are problems that require user intervention.

    And you should note CAREFULLY what the problem is before answereing
    'yes' - because you could cause more problems than you wanted to
    fix. In some rare instances in the past I've had to mount
    the / partition in 'read-only' mode so I could retreive data which
    would have been deleted by running fsck. You best bet is to run
    with 'no' until you see all the problems that could have occured.

    >I like compact code as much or more than most people, but how
    >many hundreds of bytes would be needed to add checks in fsck to
    >ensure that no other filesystems were mounted before checking
    >/root and display at least a warning.


    Take that up with the designers. That goes back about 30 years and
    is NOT just with the SCO Unix products. And actually the / is
    unmounted by the program when you run fsck on it. Running fsck
    on a mounted filesystem - with anything other than -S option [which
    may not be around anymore] is like changing a flat-tire on a car
    while you are still driving down the road.

    >Luckily, I have both disk image and tape backups, so the fact
    >that I, with the assistance of fsck, damaged a filesystem (I
    >think that it was a small DOS partition that was mounted at the
    >time) isn't a major problem.


    You can't run fsck on a DOS file system, just as you can't run
    DOS untilities on Unix systems. [I've seen people try to fix
    an old Xenix system in the past by booting with Norton and totally
    destroying everything and leaving them no path to recover].

    >This, for me, is one more sour experience that has led me to
    >conclude that Osr 5 is garbage and deserves to die.


    With what you did you would have had the same problem with
    any other Unix system [that is one that is certified as Unix]
    of which there have been close to 100 different variants since
    it was conceived in 1969. From my POV your 'sour experience' is
    due entirely to not understanding >the system< and how it all
    interioperats. I suspect most other Unix users who have been at it
    for awhile will agree with me.

    Of course now the current Unix systems - including SCO - include
    HP, IBM, Fujitsu, and a small handful of others.

    You problems appear to me that you do not understand the way
    Unix operating systems work. They are all integerated systems and
    are well documented

    >/rant off


    When you rant it's best to KNOW what you are ranting about and not
    getting po'ed because you did something wrong.

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

  3. Re: Minimalism run amok


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Arby"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:26 AM
    Subject: Minimalism run amok


    > Here's another episode in my adventures with learning Osr 5:
    >
    > I was just about ready to declare a new server ready for production when I
    > thought, "It would be a good idea to do a filesystem check first". I ran
    > fsck and was told that there was one problem and asked if I wished to
    > correct it. I was surprised but replied "yes", and to my surprise this
    > continued 'til I hit Delete (why not ctrl-C like the rest of the world?).
    >
    > Then I examined the fsck man pages, which, far down the text, mentioned
    > that when checking the /root filesystem, no other filesystems should be
    > mounted.
    >
    > I ask, "Why?" Did the fsck programmer run out of time to complete the
    > program?
    >
    > I like compact code as much or more than most people, but how many
    > hundreds of bytes would be needed to add checks in fsck to ensure that no
    > other filesystems were mounted before checking /root and display at least
    > a warning.
    >
    > Luckily, I have both disk image and tape backups, so the fact that I, with
    > the assistance of fsck, damaged a filesystem (I think that it was a small
    > DOS partition that was mounted at the time) isn't a major problem.
    >
    > This, for me, is one more sour experience that has led me to conclude that
    > Osr 5 is garbage and deserves to die.
    >
    > /rant off


    The first time I released the clutch on a car, the car immediately bucked
    and stalled. What a crappy unfinished car. The first time I tried to make
    veal marsala the sauce broke into a gooey oil & water mess, meanwhile the
    rest of the worlds Kraft macaroni & cheese never does that, what a crappy
    unfinished recipe. The first time I used a hammer, the head didn't auto-seek
    the nail with magnets and I hit my finger, what a crappy unfinished hammer.

    The fact that you do things you don't know how to do yet, and expect them to
    work instead of blow up, is not anyone elses fault.

    Running a program and having it work differently than you expected the very
    first time you ever ran it is not only not anyones fault, it's not even a
    fault in the first place. It's just plain experiance and the act of
    learning. That's what happens the first time you do anything in any context.

    So now you know a little, just a teeny little bit yet, but more than
    yesterday and already more than most people, about what fsck does, including
    the fact that you must not run fsck on a mounted filesystem, except in
    read-only check modes. And, that the default break key on SCO is Del. You
    learned this by trying it and reading the man page. That is exactly the
    normal and correct process of learning. Congratulations!

    What you just found out about fsck pretty much applies to "the rest of the
    world" too, so, by complaining about this you merely expose yourself as
    someone who has no business playing with servers except in a purely
    learn-by-destroying context.
    As for the break key, I don't know where to begin.
    First, The default differs from the "the rest of the world" because it
    existed long before what you're calling the rest of the world, which is
    probably a grand total of Linux & DOS, maybe toss in freebsd too, compared
    to the over 100 Unix variants that, along with SCO, comprised "the world"
    long before linux existed.
    Second, It's a completely user configurable preference setting. You can have
    any Break key you want. Complaining about it, even in passing, is about the
    _silliest_ thing ever.

    There are plenty of things one could legitimately comment on, even complain
    about, in OSR5. Real honest to goodness problems. The same goes for every
    other OS. But the things you are "ranting" about here are beneath
    microscopically trivial on any OS. If you are not prepared to encounter far
    more sticky issues than these, in every OS you touch, without blinking, then
    you are not prepared to admin boxes, of any OS.

    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  4. Re: Minimalism run amok

    Brian K. White escribió:
    > But the things you are "ranting" about here are beneath
    > microscopically trivial on any OS. If you are not prepared to encounterfar
    > more sticky issues than these, in every OS you touch, without blinking,then
    > you are not prepared to admin boxes, of any OS.


    WTF? Not enough oxygen being on top of that high horse?

    OSR5 defaults are generally odd, and in occasion just silly. To comment
    on that isn't silly.

    To break on DEL instead of Ctrl-C could make sense in 1989, but so what?
    Makes no sense today. Or, more well put, makes no sense today in a
    modern system; it could make sense on an non-evolutioned system kept in
    live-support for a decade, just to keep ticking some turn-key solutions
    deployed on the field. It's nice to have a jurasic microcosmos where you
    can run some dinossaur software, but what is silly is to try to make it
    pass as a sane default configuration.


  5. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On Oct 11, 9:26 am, "Arby" wrote:
    > Here's another episode in my adventures with learning Osr 5:
    >
    > I was just about ready to declare a new server ready for production when I
    > thought, "It would be a good idea to do a filesystem check first". I ran
    > fsck and was told that there was one problem and asked if I wished to
    > correct it. I was surprised but replied "yes", and to my surprise this
    > continued 'til I hit Delete (why not ctrl-C like the rest of the world?).
    >
    > Then I examined the fsck man pages, which, far down the text, mentioned that
    > when checking the /root filesystem, no other filesystems should be mounted.
    >
    > I ask, "Why?" Did the fsck programmer run out of time to complete the
    > program?
    >
    > I like compact code as much or more than most people, but how many hundreds
    > of bytes would be needed to add checks in fsck to ensure that no other
    > filesystems were mounted before checking /root and display at least a
    > warning.
    >
    > Luckily, I have both disk image and tape backups, so the fact that I, with
    > the assistance of fsck, damaged a filesystem (I think that it was a small
    > DOS partition that was mounted at the time) isn't a major problem.
    >
    > This, for me, is one more sour experience that has led me to conclude that
    > Osr 5 is garbage and deserves to die.
    >
    > /rant off


    I am not sure if your post is just a rant, or if you are looking for
    some help.
    Assuming the latter, posting the OS version, so HW details, the
    command(s)
    you ran and the error messages would certainly help.

    First, OSR5 htfs in my experience has been very robust and stable. If
    a properly
    run fsck finds errors you may have a serious HW problem. On numerous
    old OSR5
    servers that are being replaced after 3 - 7 years of 7x24 I have run
    fsck on all
    the file systems as a test. I have never seen an error.

    Second, in my experience fsck does provide some helpful feedback. On
    5.0.7:

    # uname -X

    System = SCO_SV
    Node = armada
    Release = 3.2v5.0.7
    KernelID = 2003-02-18
    Machine = PentII(D)
    BusType = ISA
    Serial = xxxxxxxx
    Users = 5
    OEM# = 0
    Origin# = 1
    NumCPU = 1

    # fsck -ofull /dev/rroot

    /dev/rroot is a mounted file system, ignored

    CONTINUE? [yn] n

    CAN'T CHECK FILE SYSTEM.
    # fsck -ofull /dev/root


    SYSTEM IS NOT IN SINGLE-USER MODE.
    FILE CORRUPTION IS POSSIBLE. CONTINUE? [yn] n

    CAN'T CHECK FILE SYSTEM.
    # fsck -ofull /dev/u

    /dev/u is a mounted file system, ignored
    CAN'T CHECK FILE SYSTEM.
    #

    Since fsck is an low level tool it will allow you to override the
    safeties, and even
    then I have never seen it blow up other mounted file systems. Some
    one from
    SCO can correct me on this but I believe it checks by device structure
    and does
    not descend into the other file systems. Without the "-ofull" fsck
    does a higher
    level check and again I have not seen it destroy anything.

    >This, for me, is one more sour experience that has led me to conclude that
    >Osr 5 is garbage and deserves to die.


    With a bit of searching you will find that fsck works pretty much the
    same on other versions of UNIX. Does LINUX prevent fsck from
    checking mounted file systems?
    Check to see what happens on Linux if you run the standard/default
    fsck on an
    ext3 file system without specifying "-t ext3" first.

    http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/repair...le-system.html

    Third, "stty intr ^C" can be set in /etc/profile if you want.

    Mike




  6. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On Oct 11, 7:28 pm, Pepe wrote:
    > Brian K. White escribió:
    >
    > > But the things you are "ranting" about here are beneath
    > > microscopically trivial on any OS. If you are not prepared to encounterfar
    > > more sticky issues than these, in every OS you touch, without blinking,then
    > > you are not prepared to admin boxes, of any OS.

    >
    > WTF? Not enough oxygen being on top of that high horse?
    >
    > OSR5 defaults are generally odd, and in occasion just silly. To comment
    > on that isn't silly.
    >
    > To break on DEL instead of Ctrl-C could make sense in 1989, but so what?
    > Makes no sense today. Or, more well put, makes no sense today in a
    > modern system; it could make sense on an non-evolutioned system kept in
    > live-support for a decade, just to keep ticking some turn-key solutions
    > deployed on the field. It's nice to have a jurasic microcosmos where you
    > can run some dinossaur software, but what is silly is to try to make it
    > pass as a sane default configuration.


    Oh bull.

    This is such utter nonsense.. you and Arby both ought to be fired -
    from ANY administrator
    position, no matter what the OS.

    stty intr ^C





  7. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On Oct 11, 11:52 am, b...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:

    >
    > When you rant it's best to KNOW what you are ranting about and not
    > getting po'ed because you did something wrong.
    >


    Perhaps he read http://aplawrence.com/Lighter/welcome_to_unix.html



  8. Re: Minimalism run amok

    , and maybe attatch a 30Meg movie of a 30 byte error message...

    Now if only I had remembered to post in html...

    Because I know you've been doing it that way for a long time and thats a lot
    of training to undo.

    Oh, and I corrected your backwards posting.

    That was wonderful.

    > Perhaps he read http://aplawrence.com/Lighter/welcome_to_unix.html


    >> When you rant it's best to KNOW what you are ranting about and not
    >> getting po'ed because you did something wrong.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Tony Lawrence"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 6:53 AM
    Subject: Re: Minimalism run amok


    > On Oct 11, 11:52 am, b...@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:



  9. Re: Minimalism run amok

    Tony Lawrence escribió:
    > This is such utter nonsense.. you and Arby both ought to be fired -
    > from ANY administrator
    > position, no matter what the OS.


    Yes, and the world ought to be immediately shut down.

    Alas, things stand as they are...

  10. Re: Minimalism run amok


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Pepe"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:36 PM
    Subject: Re: Minimalism run amok


    > Tony Lawrence escribió:
    >> This is such utter nonsense.. you and Arby both ought to be fired -
    >> from ANY administrator
    >> position, no matter what the OS.

    >
    > Yes, and the world ought to be immediately shut down.
    >
    > Alas, things stand as they are...


    There is no excuse for that kind of attitude. If you are OK with that, then
    all I can say is thank neither you or this guy are my doctor or my
    airplane pilot or any other position that has any significant impact on my
    life.

    Ok, lets tone down the drama from the life & death examples, though they
    completely apply. Are you really OK with it when you pay some roofers a few
    thousand bucks to put a new roof on your house, but they don't know what
    they're doing and an expensive piece of artwork gets water damaged or some
    irreplaceable family history stuff, etc?

    In what areas _are_ you really ok with paying smeone to do a job that they
    don't know how to do, and then more importantly, ok with living with the
    results of that job where you might be lucky or you might lose everything?

    I really can't think of anything more important than the kids that mow grass
    or shovel snow for me.

    It's crap like this that results in people getting a whole new steam heat
    system installed in their house, and the contractor used PVC which probably
    looked awsome and worked great for the 10 minutes he tested before leaving,
    only for the unfortunate homeowner to get stuck with a house full of steam
    and basement full of melted plastic. "Things stand as they are..." let them
    stand as they are at your house. I will continue to seek to avoid that kind
    of thing both for myself and for anyone I know and anyone I don't know too.
    And I will not feel the slightest bit apologetic about it.

    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  11. Re: Minimalism run amok

    It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    otherwise make your life miserable, etc.

    "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.

    Now, if you could excuse me, I've got to go to crash some planes, burn
    down some houses, misdiagnose some patients (preferably orphan
    children), and other things people who hold my opinions we usually do.
    Thank you very much.


    Brian K. White escribió:
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Pepe"
    > Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    > To:
    > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:36 PM
    > Subject: Re: Minimalism run amok
    >
    >
    >> Tony Lawrence escribió:
    >>> This is such utter nonsense.. you and Arby both ought to be fired -
    >>> from ANY administrator
    >>> position, no matter what the OS.

    >> Yes, and the world ought to be immediately shut down.
    >>
    >> Alas, things stand as they are...

    >
    > There is no excuse for that kind of attitude. If you are OK with that, then
    > all I can say is thank neither you or this guy are my doctor or my
    > airplane pilot or any other position that has any significant impact on my
    > life.
    >
    > Ok, lets tone down the drama from the life & death examples, though they
    > completely apply. Are you really OK with it when you pay some roofers a few
    > thousand bucks to put a new roof on your house, but they don't know what
    > they're doing and an expensive piece of artwork gets water damaged or some
    > irreplaceable family history stuff, etc?
    >
    > In what areas _are_ you really ok with paying smeone to do a job that they
    > don't know how to do, and then more importantly, ok with living with the
    > results of that job where you might be lucky or you might lose everything?
    >
    > I really can't think of anything more important than the kids that mow grass
    > or shovel snow for me.
    >
    > It's crap like this that results in people getting a whole new steam heat
    > system installed in their house, and the contractor used PVC which probably
    > looked awsome and worked great for the 10 minutes he tested before leaving,
    > only for the unfortunate homeowner to get stuck with a house full of steam
    > and basement full of melted plastic. "Things stand as they are..." let them
    > stand as they are at your house. I will continue to seek to avoid that kind
    > of thing both for myself and for anyone I know and anyone I don't know too.
    > And I will not feel the slightest bit apologetic about it.
    >
    > Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    > +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    > filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
    >


  12. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On Oct 18, 4:40 pm, Pepe wrote:
    > It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    > my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    > instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    > otherwise make your life miserable, etc.
    >
    > "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    > nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    > reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.
    >
    > Now, if you could excuse me, I've got to go to crash some planes, burn
    > down some houses, misdiagnose some patients (preferably orphan
    > children), and other things people who hold my opinions we usually do.
    > Thank you very much.
    >


    Only in Windoze-world does one much care about such things. In the
    *ix word we salt to taste.

    Can't say that I see a moral distinction between DEL and Ctrl-C. The
    only claim to fame of the latter is that it's the (current) Windoze
    command line break.

    --RLR


  13. Re: Minimalism run amok

    Pepe wrote:
    > It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    > my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    > instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    > otherwise make your life miserable, etc.
    >
    > "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    > nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    > reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.
    >
    > Now, if you could excuse me, I've got to go to crash some planes, burn
    > down some houses, misdiagnose some patients (preferably orphan
    > children), and other things people who hold my opinions we usually do.
    > Thank you very much.
    >
    >
    > Brian K. White escribió:
    >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pepe"
    >> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    >> To:
    >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:36 PM
    >> Subject: Re: Minimalism run amok
    >>
    >>
    >>> Tony Lawrence escribió:
    >>>> This is such utter nonsense.. you and Arby both ought to be fired -
    >>>> from ANY administrator
    >>>> position, no matter what the OS.
    >>> Yes, and the world ought to be immediately shut down.
    >>>
    >>> Alas, things stand as they are...

    >>
    >> There is no excuse for that kind of attitude. If you are OK with that,
    >> then all I can say is thank neither you or this guy are my
    >> doctor or my airplane pilot or any other position that has any
    >> significant impact on my life.
    >>
    >> Ok, lets tone down the drama from the life & death examples, though
    >> they completely apply. Are you really OK with it when you pay some
    >> roofers a few thousand bucks to put a new roof on your house, but they
    >> don't know what they're doing and an expensive piece of artwork gets
    >> water damaged or some irreplaceable family history stuff, etc?
    >>
    >> In what areas _are_ you really ok with paying smeone to do a job that
    >> they don't know how to do, and then more importantly, ok with living
    >> with the results of that job where you might be lucky or you might
    >> lose everything?
    >>
    >> I really can't think of anything more important than the kids that mow
    >> grass or shovel snow for me.
    >>
    >> It's crap like this that results in people getting a whole new steam
    >> heat system installed in their house, and the contractor used PVC
    >> which probably looked awsome and worked great for the 10 minutes he
    >> tested before leaving, only for the unfortunate homeowner to get stuck
    >> with a house full of steam and basement full of melted plastic.
    >> "Things stand as they are..." let them stand as they are at your
    >> house. I will continue to seek to avoid that kind of thing both for
    >> myself and for anyone I know and anyone I don't know too. And I will
    >> not feel the slightest bit apologetic about it.
    >>
    >> Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    >> +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    >> filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
    >>


    Add stty "^C" to the /etc/profile file and all logins will inherent your
    preferred break character.

    Oh, wait, sorry I just gave you a *choice*.

    Obviously you would prefer the break be mandated by the OS gods (did I
    mention Windooze?) and be forever immutable and inscrutable.

    Go buy some more overpriced and under performing software and help Bill
    build his 82nd full bathroom in his mansion.

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Pat Welch, UBB Computer Services, a WCS Affiliate
    SCO Authorized Partner
    Unix/Linux/Windows/Hardware Sales/Support
    (209) 745-1401 Cell: (209) 251-9120
    E-mail: patubb@inreach.com
    ----------------------------------------------------

  14. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On 2007-10-18, Pepe wrote:
    > It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    > my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    > instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    > otherwise make your life miserable, etc.


    DEL _was_ standard for System V Unixes. Maybe it still is. Why
    change it for changes sake, just because ^C is more common? The
    most popular colour for cars is red. Does that mean that cars that
    are not red are "wrong"? Of course not. It's simply a difference.
    An unimportant difference most of the time that depends more on
    preference than anything else.

    > "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    > nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    > reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.


    No. It means that the rate of change is slow and steady. You
    don't get the sudden U-turns of Windows - witness 4 different user
    interfaces in 15 years, MFC replaced by ActiveX replaced by .NET...
    If something changes in Unix, it's usually for a good reason and
    that change is going to be good for at least a decade, probably
    more.

    --
    Andrew Smallshaw
    andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

  15. Re: Minimalism run amok

    On Fri, Oct 19, 2007, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
    >On 2007-10-18, Pepe wrote:
    >> It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    >> my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    >> instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    >> otherwise make your life miserable, etc.

    >
    >DEL _was_ standard for System V Unixes. Maybe it still is. Why
    >change it for changes sake, just because ^C is more common? The
    >most popular colour for cars is red. Does that mean that cars that
    >are not red are "wrong"? Of course not. It's simply a difference.
    >An unimportant difference most of the time that depends more on
    >preference than anything else.


    I prefer to use the same keys on all systems so I don't have to remember
    which one I'm working on in a particular terminal window. That's why I
    have the appropriate "stty intr '^C' " in all my ~/.profiles regarless of
    system type.

    I can't speak to other SYSV Unixes, having little experience with them
    outside the SCO/Tandy family.

    When I started using X11 about 15 years ago under OpenDesktop 2.0 I think
    that the scoterm X-client did implement the DEL key for interrupt, but
    scoterms didn't work worth a damn when connecting to SunOS, Sequent Dynix,
    or Linux boxes. The xterm clients didn't send DEL when pressing the DEL
    key on PC-101 keyboards.

    Many dumb terminals didn't send the correct codes from their DEL key (and
    DEC terminals sent the DEL character from what should have been backspace
    in the upper right hand corner :-).

    Using ctrl-C for interrupt makes sense to me as it's always available on
    any keyboard.

    >> "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    >> nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    >> reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.

    >
    >No. It means that the rate of change is slow and steady. You
    >don't get the sudden U-turns of Windows - witness 4 different user
    >interfaces in 15 years, MFC replaced by ActiveX replaced by .NET...
    >If something changes in Unix, it's usually for a good reason and
    >that change is going to be good for at least a decade, probably
    >more.


    And Windows treats the ESC key as a key, not as the first character in a
    command sequence as the $deity of ASCII intended.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676

    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal
    in slavery than unequal in freedom.
    -Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859

  16. Re: Minimalism run amok


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Bill Campbell"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:34 PM
    Subject: Re: Minimalism run amok


    > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
    >>On 2007-10-18, Pepe wrote:
    >>> It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    >>> my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    >>> instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    >>> otherwise make your life miserable, etc.

    >>
    >>DEL _was_ standard for System V Unixes. Maybe it still is. Why
    >>change it for changes sake, just because ^C is more common? The
    >>most popular colour for cars is red. Does that mean that cars that
    >>are not red are "wrong"? Of course not. It's simply a difference.
    >>An unimportant difference most of the time that depends more on
    >>preference than anything else.

    >
    > I prefer to use the same keys on all systems so I don't have to remember
    > which one I'm working on in a particular terminal window. That's why I
    > have the appropriate "stty intr '^C' " in all my ~/.profiles regarless of
    > system type.


    This would probably blow the original posters mind, but I actually think
    ctrl-c makes more sense.
    But not because of any familiarity or commonality or standards conformance.
    Simply because I think it makes more sense for a break/interrupt action to
    require the deliberation of a 2 part hot-key and not be quite so easy to do
    accidentally as any single keypress.

    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!



  17. Re: Minimalism run amok

    > Simply because I think it makes more sense for a break/interrupt action to
    > require the deliberation of a 2 part hot-key and not be quite so easy to
    > do
    > accidentally as any single keypress.


    ...this coming from a guy who uses "crontab -e" a
    hundred times a day.

    and yes I have burned myself that way once. Just once so far though and it
    was trivial to pull back from any of the 7 days of daily tars on disk, never
    even had to look at the 2 weeks worth of tapes that were also available, so
    it wasn't a bad enough burn to "that'll learn 'im".

    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  18. Re: Minimalism run amok

    In article ,
    Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
    >On 2007-10-18, Pepe wrote:
    >> It's posts like this, which make Usenet oh so funny. I'm SO sorry that
    >> my opinion on the obsolescence of defaulting *today* to break on DEL
    >> instead of on Ctrl-C could crash your plane, melt down your house, and
    >> otherwise make your life miserable, etc.


    >DEL _was_ standard for System V Unixes. Maybe it still is. Why
    >change it for changes sake, just because ^C is more common? The
    >most popular colour for cars is red. Does that mean that cars that
    >are not red are "wrong"? Of course not. It's simply a difference.
    >An unimportant difference most of the time that depends more on
    >preference than anything else.


    The DEL with shift for backspace was the 'standard' that was
    set pretty much by the DEC VT-100. [I sill have an original
    DEC manual for one of those beasts].

    Since DEC was selling more Unix systems than any vendor except
    Radio Shack / Tandy with the Model 16/6000 - it pretty much becamce
    the standard for terminals - and almost all terminals usually
    had a VT-100 emulation in them. Of course the first VT-100
    only had FOUR function keys. I'd never be able to do anything
    with one of those today.

    >> "Things stand as they are" means your staunch grasp of old customs is
    >> nothing more than a staunch grasp of old customs, and NOT the last
    >> reservoir of pure and infallible dogma.


    >No. It means that the rate of change is slow and steady. You
    >don't get the sudden U-turns of Windows - witness 4 different user
    >interfaces in 15 years, MFC replaced by ActiveX replaced by .NET...
    >If something changes in Unix, it's usually for a good reason and
    >that change is going to be good for at least a decade, probably
    >more.


    >--
    >Andrew Smallshaw
    >andrews@sdf.lonestar.org


    And not that just the rate of change is slow and steady, Unix
    systems tend to remain backward comaptible - with few changes.
    I wish some Linux vendors would realize that.

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

  19. Re: Minimalism run amok

    In article <004201c812af$510814c0$861fa8c0@tv>,
    Brian K. White wrote:
    >> Simply because I think it makes more sense for a break/interrupt action to
    >> require the deliberation of a 2 part hot-key and not be quite so easy to
    >> do
    >> accidentally as any single keypress.


    >...this coming from a guy who uses "crontab -e" a
    >hundred times a day.


    >and yes I have burned myself that way once. Just once so far
    >though and it was trivial to pull back from any of the 7 days of
    >daily tars on disk, never even had to look at the 2 weeks worth
    >of tapes that were also available, so it wasn't a bad enough burn
    >to "that'll learn 'im".


    Making a mistake and learning to recover from it is one of the
    best ways of learning to avoid making that mistake in the future.

    When I was teaching audio we wanted the students to accidentally
    erase a master in the class - so they would be traumatized enough
    so they'd usually not make that mistake in the real world.

    My worst case was when someone was pushing me to do something
    remotely and 'while you are at it will you ...'

    Damn that was ugly. An 'rm' in / on and SGI. And to get back
    you had to know the ROM revs to be able to get the right images
    from the distribution CDs. Now THAT was a real learning
    exeperience.

    I've only done it once. So now in critical systems
    I'll perform an ls - and if it looks
    right I use the vi editing feature in ksh to change the
    ls to rm.

    Haven't lost a file in years.

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

  20. Re: Minimalism run amok

    Andrew Smallshaw escribió:
    > No. It means that the rate of change is slow and steady. You
    > don't get the sudden U-turns of Windows - witness 4 different user
    > interfaces in 15 years, MFC replaced by ActiveX replaced by .NET...


    Three replies to my post, and all three have a mention of Windows (some
    with "creative" spelling). WTF? Why are you using ad-hominem and
    bringing Windows to the table in this thread?

    I think none of those replies understood what I was talking about.

    But don't worry, I won't repeat the point here. Otherwise only god knows
    what convoluted replies I could get.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast