[GTALUG] Tutorials on Linux command-line -- any interest?

Steve Petrie, P.Eng. apetrie at aspetrie.net
Thu Jul 27 02:04:46 EDT 2017


Hugh,

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

My remarks are below.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk at gtalug.org>
To: "GTALUG Talk" <talk at gtalug.org>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [GTALUG] Tutorials on Linux command-line -- any interest?


>| From: "Steve Petrie, P.Eng. via talk" <talk at gtalug.org>
>
<snip>

> vi skills are pretty basic to using Linux.  But I don't have them and
> I've survived.  I've used UNIX and then Linux as my primary OS since
> before vi existed.  Still, I recommend learning vi if you can stand
> it.
>
> For new users there are a lot of reasonable choices: gedit and
> nano/pico, for example.
>
> I happily use an emacs-subset "jove" as my editor.  emacs' keystrokes
> are known to nano/pico, alpine (Mail User Agent), and to bash so I'm
> mostly OK without vi skills.
>
> (vi grew out of UNIX ed, a "line editor".  The concept of modes is in
> its DNA.  Modes are a Bad Thing.  "don't mode me in" is a rallying cry
> found on Larry Tesler's t-shirt.)
>
> For decades, emacs was much more powerful than vi and some of that
> power is quite useful (eg. multiple buffers and multiple panes).  vim
> has probably caught up.
>

Many helpful tips about line editors under linux, much appreciated.

What primarily conditions my choices of various tools (and pretty well
all else) in the transition from Win XP to debian Linux, is an
overriding need for maximum simplicity of working environment. I need to
be able to switch quickly from one of my projects to another, sometimes
not touching a project for many months. Everything I work on better be
plain dead dumb simple to understand and use, because I'm never ever
going to be other than barely scratching the surface of what Linux can
do for me.

This need for simplicity and personal time economy, even conditions the
time I will take to choose tools for my Linux personal toolbox.

It''s a paradox. Computers and the Internet are so vitally importent to
the projects I work on that I am investing a lot of time fine-tuniing
the Windows => Linux move (both hw and sw). At the same time, I have too
many projects on the go, and too little time left in this world in which
to complete them. But I so love working at computers and programming
that only sternest self-denial keeps me from entanglement in the
pleasures of Linux hair-splitting. The last thing I need is to spend too
much time learning neat new stuff about Linux if this takes me away from
pushing around the other chequers on my chequerboard of life ...


> I'm not sure why one would pick mksh ("MirBSD Korn Shell") over bash.
> Could you explain?
>
<snip>
<bash is everywhere.  Microsoft now supports bash on Win10!  If mksh
<has no significant advantage, you are better off with bash.  Are there
<significant advantages for you?


I'm a Linux newbie. My only Unix-related experience is a project I
worked on many years ago before I retired as an independent contract
software engineer. Technical lead on a project to customize and install
an annuities system (broker sale transactions, annuitant management and
payout) for a life insurance company, running under IBM's AIX version of
Unux. I was handed KSH as my shell. I always found KSH to be rock solid
and easy enought to use. So I rationalized my MKSH decision with Linux
as "better the devil you used to know".

As with other decisions I have made in my Win ==> Lin transition, I am
open to having my mind changed by advice from GTALUG members, Based on
your advice, I'll very likely step up to bash and forget about mksh. I
did take a serious look at Fish Shell. But in the end that team's almost
joyful ease with breaking backward compatibility, aroused my terror of
all things bleeding edge, to rule out Fish shell.

Your point about bash being everywhere rang a loud bell for me. Quite
likely bash is going to rear its friendly head anyway, during my life
with Linux, in the form of tool-specific bash scripting included with
some tool I choose to use.


> Pick your fights.  Here are some I've picked:
>
> - I use Linux, not Windows
+1 (soon).

>- I use Jove (emacs subset), not vi, not emacs
noted.

>use C, not C++
I use C++ mostly like C but with some simple objects and exceptions.


> - (lost long ago) Atari ST, not IBM PC
>
Lost long ago Imsai 8080 (kit) & Commodore 64.

> And some I have not fought:
>
> - I use whatever desktop my distro provides
>
I plan to use LXDE (Win-like & low resource utilization).

<snip>

> | I may install Windows (7 / 10) in case of a dire need for some
> Windows
> | functionality. E.g. flashing the ASROCK mainboard bios. But just
> today
> | (24 July 2017), I learned from D. Hugh Redelmeier's posting, about
> the
> | FreeDOS alternative for flashing firmware, so I've tucked that idea
> away
> | in a notes file for future reference -- Thanks Hugh !!
>
> I'm glad you found that useful.  I just assumed (with no basis!) that
> everyone knew about FreeDOS.

I did know about (the liklihood of things like) FreeDOS.

What I didn't know is that it seems that bios firmware patches must come
in some kind of community-standard representation that frees motherboard
users from being stuck with using the mb-maker's fw update tool.

> ---
> Talk Mailing List
> talk at gtalug.org
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>



More information about the talk mailing list