Crossposting this to comp.os.linux.advocacy, as well as changing the
title. The content is .. uhh .. "religious" in nature. :^)
In article <01bc2373$6bdd2ec0$d69f389d@v-jurgex-main> "Jurgen Exner"
>Charles Roten <cro...@big.aa.net> wrote in article
>> In article <330BA3D8.5...@tafensw.edu.au> Peter Taylor
>> <peter.tay...@tafensw.edu.au> writes:
>> >Hi - I've just installed linux (for the first time).
>> >I am using the bash shell. I have a problem with running a
>> >shell script. If I use the syntax 'bash scriptname' the script
>> >is executed. If I simply enter the script name nothing happens.
>> >This occurs even if I am logged on as root so I don't think it
>> >has anything to do with privileges. I am told this should not be
>> >the case. Can anyone suggest a solution?
>> >Thanks in advance,
>> Dammit, people ought to be getting better answers here.
>Well, I thought some time if I should post a follow-up.
>And although your argumentation is resonable, I have to admit, that
>I don't share your conclusion.
>Maybe you missed the name of this newsgroup: c.o.LINUX.SETUP
here. Or why. And, IMHO, it calls for measures that most of us,
myself included, would _never_ _consider_ under other circumstances.
I'm _very_ serious about this. See below.
>in this newsgroup should be related to the installation of linux and
>linux specific software.
But I _do_ think we have different interpretations of what the
fellow who asked the original question _represents_. To me, he
represents the _second_ real chance UNIX has had to ascend to
something like it's proper place among PC operating systems. Among
_other_ things. Most of which are _far_ better than we deserve. ;^>
>a question about a particular UNIX shell and not related to Linux or
>its installation at all.
>The fact, that a lot of people are making their first UNIX
>experiences right now with Linux does not excempt them from
>- using their intelligence
>- asking questions in the appropriate newsgroups only (in this case
>comp.unix.shell or maybe comp.unix.questions)
>- reading documentation (man bash would have answered at least two
>of the three points you pointed out in your posting)
>- reading books (there are excellent books on UNIX; yes, I expect
>people to read!)
>- reading old postings (this question has been asked in several
>forms for several times, dejanews is a good starting point)
>So far, the original poster got a quite decent explanation, although
>it was sprinkled in more than one answer.
>In my opinion this is more than he could expect.
>Please remember: This newsgroup is not intended to teach beginners
We are going to see, and indeed, ARE seeing, some of the rawest
newbies to come down the pike since AOL posts started showing up on
Usenet. In _THIS_ newsgroup .. comp.os.linux.setup.
IMHO, we should have expected _precisely_ this .. and _should_
_consider_ _it_ _a_ "_best_-_case_" _scenario_ .. or, at least, the
first stages of such.
Look, some poor sod who has never so much as _logged_ _on_ to a UNIX
box in his entire _life_ may be getting his first taste of shell-
related issues while running Linux. Like I think the original poster
did, in fact. As far as _he_ is concerned, it is not a UNIX issue,
but a Linux issue ... Ignorance up the wazoo, sure. But for maybe
90% or more of the computing community, the difference between Linux-
specific issues and UNIX issues is invisible to the naked eye. Since
they don't know anything about _either_, until they fire up their
shiny new Linux partition for the first time, and run smack into
Then .. you guessed it .. they come _here_.
Reading the right books will help, sure .. but I'll bet a dollar to a
donut that more than 80% of the folks who show up here have never
even _heard_ of the Nutshell series. Even the _best_ references
aren't going to do a curst bit of good to someone who does not know
Again, I agree with your point that consulting the proper newsgroups
is the correct way to proceed .. but remember that, as I mentioned
before, the fellow who is _doing_ the consulting is _very_
_frequently_ unaware of the off-topic nature of the post when he or
she shows up _here_. Re: my previous remark about the difference
between "Linux" and "UNIX" being invisible at the level that a good
many of the pinky-new Linux users are at right now.
Look, I rather painfully recall the _last_ time UNIX was poised to
become a serious contender among PC operating systems. The late '80s
... SCO had their el-weirdo UNIX clone, which would run on machines
we would consider _painfully_ absurd today .. wretched '286 boxes,
with 4 mbytes of memory .. in some cases, less. Then the '386s hit
the street. Now by modern standards, the '386 is a boat anchor. But
a 25 MHz '386, equipped with a cache, was about 5 times faster, for
most things, than a VAX 11-780. I _know_. I used both, and under
UNIX in both cases. Sun came out with their 386i line .. doomed by
the poor engineering decisions (especially the _compiler_) made by
Sun ECD, and by Sun's decision to dump all but the SPARC hardware
architecture .. but in 1988, the effect of this market entry was
_quite_ dramatic. Then Everex purchased a source license for AT&T
System V. Other players got into the action ... Computer Shopper
had a monthly _UNIX_ _column_, for Pete's sake. "BYTE" spent some
effort to track the "workstation" class machines .. as it was
pikestaff-plain to those of us who _had_ used UNIX on Intel platforms
that there was no unbridgable gap _at_ _all_ between "PC" hardware
What happened ??
Well, I happen to have a hardcopy of a couple of periodic posts of a
certain e...@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond), dating from June and
July of '93, to comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit. One of them was an
overview of Unices available for PC-clone hardware. And it tells a
pretty shocking story, taken in context. SCO wanted a fellow's right
arm, one eye, and both gonads for a copy of _it's_ version of
SysVr3.2. Most of the other vendors were _somewhat_ more reasonable
.. but $500 US was the _low_ bid. Now _that_ was, then as now, 1/4
of the dollar amount of the cost of a mid-range PC. Just for the
_operating_ _system_! Once the _other_ tools were figured in, the
software ticket was _far_ higher than the cost of the _hardware_, for
the small-business market that, if you'll recall, made the PC
revolution happen in the _first_ _place_, back in the late '70s to
early '80s. In short, the UNIX vendors priced themselves right out
of the market, for almost everyone.
Then, too, there was the UNIX "reputation" as a poorly documented
and downright user-homicidal OS. You've got to admit, by modern
standards, "nroff -man manual-page.1 | more" is a trifle primitive ..
but in 1990, that was as good as online UNIX documentation got. In
early 1990, the _only_ book I could find on the X11 window system
that could in _any_ _sense_ be called a "User's Guide" was volume 3
of the O'Reilly series ... and at 700+ pages, the thing _was_ just a
_trifle_ intimidating to the average raw beginner.
Put this all together, and the UNIX entries in the market were just
priced too far above most folk's heads, both in monetary terms and
in terms of training and/or "learning curve". And Microsoft was
selling _simplicity_. At a seemingly _far_ lower price point.
So UNIX went down the tubes .. and these days nearly all one can see
is broken Microsoft trash, like Windows '95. Running on platforms so
_incredibly_ powerful that just about anyone who did any serious
computing would have committed _cheerful_ _murder_ for one, just 10
years ago. And just about the only operating systems that most folks
have had any experience with are that "broken Microsoft trash".
Is it just me, or does this seem _particularly_ absurd to you too ?
Now, we have a second chance. Linux _performs_ the feat of turning
a sow's ear into a silk purse. And at a dollar cost _far_ _lower_
than what _inferior_ operating systems cost from Microsoft. The
Linux Documentation Project has labored _heroically_ to make
UNIX/Linux issues accessible to folks who "grew up" using GatesWare.
For folks who've been clued in, and have a few bucks to spend on
books, the folks at O'Reilly (and, these days, it's _competitors_)
have deployed a very impressive array of available hardcopy help.
But in order for Linux to "make it" as _more_ than just a system for
hobbyists .. and, by doing so, to place a _well_ _designed_ operating
system on just about everyone's desk who wants one .. the Linux
community is going to have to go through the pains associated with a
veritable _mass_ _migration_ of _extremely_ raw newbies into it's
IMHO, in large part, the future of Linux in particular, and of UNIX
in general, will be _closely_ tied to the success or failure of the
Linux community in educating and thus absorbing the aforesaid
They are coming to _us_. And, unlike the AOL folks who wandered into
Usenet a few years back, these UNIX-geeks-in-embryo are looking for
far more than merely another backyard fence to exchange gossip over.
They are ...
read more »