Re: [tlug] linux@example.com How many widely can we do that?

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:27:04 +0900
Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:

> On 2009-10-25 15:03 +0100 (Sun), Attila Kinali wrote:
> 
> > That's because you invested more time in learning linux than you
> > did in learning windows. Windows is, contrary to common believe, as
> > flexible and as complicated as a unix system....
> 
> Once you've added 4DOS, maybe. But who uses that any more?

Oh my... I completely forgot about 4DOS....
Damn, that thing is old ^^'
 
> Windows still has nothing at the level of Bourne shell (unless you
> install Cygwin, of course, and who will let you do that?). There have
> been many possibilities: 4DOS (died after 3.1), REXX (died with OS/2),
> but CMD.EXE is what we're still stuck with. I won't bother to explain
> why this is an important indicator.

Be carefull, you're stepping into the "it's differnt, thus it sucks" trap.
Windows has a different usage philosophy and to use it efficiently
you have to have a good grasp of that philosophy. It's exactly the
same with unix, you'll always be stuck with trivial problems
unless you figure out what the big master plan behind the unix
tools are. But you should never apply the philosophy of one OS
to an other, you will always fail.

			Attila Kinali

-- 
The true CS students do not need to know how to program.
They learn how to abstract the process of programming to
the point of making programmers obsolete.
		-- Jabber in #holo