: g> Could somone help me, Im new to linux and dont understand the
: g> command console(the dos looking area) if somone could direct me to
: All commands on UNIX are documented via man (e.g., "man ls"). However,
: that's probably too detailed for you at this point.
Remeniscing ... I remember my first contact with unix. They brought it
in a box and it turned out to be a sun workstation. I opened it, found
some instructions and a tape casette, and managed to put the two
together. Took me a day to find out the instructions were wrong. The
bootstrap was on another sector of the tape. The tape device was not
accessed by the boot params listed. Etc.
Good guesses, a couple of days and I had installed solaris a few times.
Partitioned a few times. There was a box full of those wall to wall
manuals (the manpages! Yes - they really used to exist on paper).
I found the page that said "Intro(1)" and read it. It told me about cd,
mv, and so on. Or at least I think so. I read the manpages. I found the
directories on disk with the binaries in (/bin. ...). I executed every
single executable binary just to see what it did. At some point I found
out about man -k (I think if you typed "help" it used to say "apropos
what?", which was enough of a clue - just try "apropos"). I can't
swear that I had X running, but I think so. Yes. I am sure.
A couple of weeks later the sun engineers came to install the machine
and were surprised that I had it up and running. Apparently I was the
first in britain to have managed it on my own. Mistakes in the
instructions and all that ...!
So why are people asking for instruction? Clearly I'm the last person
to know why, or to be able to give it (heck, I learnt how to program by
reading the batches of fortran cards that I shoved into an ibm 370 at
night as a summer vacation job. Yecch - jcl!). It never ocurred to me
to ask. Just look, think, try, observe, and think again.
The answer is perhaps that nowadays things ARE more complicated. One
can't expect to untangle the myriad of interactions that exist in a
complex system without at least some orientation. Other people who
answer here have it (and the great silent unwashed out there also often
have it, and are too busy earning money to pass it on). The questions
from "newbies" seem to me to be really asking for that orientation.
On the face of it the questions themselves are ridiculous. No sane
person would ask such things. But then, in this context, the newbies
are insane. Their environment is strange and "new". Anything might happen
in it! We know that is not so, but then we know the ground rules. And
rule number one is that everything has an explanation. There are no
mysteries. This is a computer, and an o/s for which we have the code.
I can read the reason in the code, or I can run experiments again and
again until I determine it. That is in contrast to the situation in
windows, where magic and incantation rules, because we cannot access
the code or the authors in any meaningful way. Here we can.
Now, I grant you that economic considerations preclude most people
from exercising their right to find out an explanation. Too much time
is required for _them_ to do so. That means that they "try" and palm
off the expense onto someone else, for whom it will be less of a burden.
An "expert", perhaps? But they have that choice. If they want to learn,
they can. If they don't want to learn, they can pay me, and see if I do
the learning and the explaining for them. I even often do the
explaining and learning for free, out of curiousity. But that gesture
should not be taken advantage of. I try and encourage "newbies" to
orient themselves, to ask and answer their own questions, with their
own research efforts. Is that not fair?