Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[uunet!bria!mike]

[ in the on-going assault on ol' Pete Norton and his DOS flunkies ... ]

In an article, ra.MsState.Edu!it1 (Tim Tsai) writes:
>>In article <455 at bria>:
>>Computer proficient users can do whatever they like, permissions not with-
>>standing.  However, the thrust of tool development is, and should be, the
>>computer professional.
>
>  Hmmm, so you are saying that Norton Utilities weren't developed by
>  computer professionals??  I don't think we're on the same wavelength
>  here.

I am saying that the NU philosophy was developed by a group of DOS progammers
trying to migrate to a "hot" market.  The DOS philosophy (if you can even
say that DOS has a philosophy) has no place in the UNIX environment.

NU is not a tool, it is a monolithic kludge.  A tool is a program that does
_one_ thing _very_ well, and whose strength lies in the interaction with
other tools.  And, no, I do not consider things like awk and perl to be
tools in the strictest sense, although they are indeed very valuable.

[ on to a discussion on the virtues of sysadmins ... ]

>>Yes, you do have to start somewhere.  My point was that too many UNIX
>>"professionals" are not learning the _innards_ of the operating system.
>>They are using scripts and such (that were designed to make routine jobs
>>a bit easier) as a _crutch_.  And yes, a sysadmin that relies on 'vi' and
>>has no idea how to use 'ed' is NOT worth a dime.  Know why?  Sometime, he's
>>gonna run into a situation where his /usr filesystem got hosed, or the
>>/etc/termcap got chunked.  If something like that stops a sysadmin, then
>>yep, he's worthless as a plug nickel.
>
>  So what does all this have to do with Norton Utilities?  Is ed the
>  _innards_ of the operating system?  A sysadmin should be able to adapt
>  to a situation, instead of knowing a few set-procedures well.  I think
>  a sysadmin should be able to *FIGURE* out how to use ed with the
>  proper documentation.  Some of us also believe in making backups of
>  some of the more useful utilities in case of system crashes. (speaking
>  from the DOS world.  I'm not an unix sysadmin, and as a matter of
>  fact, a lowly undergrad.  Does this automatically disqualify me from
>  speaking here?? :)

Naturally, ed has nothing to do with the innards of the operating system.
I was trying to make my point two-fold: 1) up-and-coming sysadmins are 
learning to walk with crutches instead of on their own two feet; 2) a lack of
knowledge of UNIX basics (such as using ed) is becoming prevelant.  Note
that this whole 'ed' thing started when you wondered if using 'vi'
was an example of using a crutch.  My response was, yes, if that is _all_
that he knows how to use.

My bottom line is this:  Use whatever you want; but as a sysadmin, you
absolutely _must_ be able to survive without extraneous riff-raff, like
NU.  You can have all of the bootable floppies and backup tapes you
want ... something is gonna come down the pike that you don't expect.
There is no gizmo that will substitute for knowledge about how things are
done.  Plain and simple.

[ now, onward to the methodologies of NU's undelete ... ]

>>It depends.  Since Norton attaches itself, virus-like, to my kernel, and
>>induces the kernel to lie to me about the true state of affairs on the
>>system, I would count this as a hinderance.
>
>  Virus-like?  I don't think so..  We all use these "viruses" in
>  day to day operation..  You may send me e.mail via it1 at msstate.edu,
>  but somewhere along the path, that address gets translated to
>  it1 at ra.msstate.edu..  There, my system just lied about my true
>  address.  What's my point??  If the operation is *COMPLETELY*
>  transparent to the users and the sysadmins, then what's wrong with
>  it? [...]

I don't think that address translation would fall in the domain of "virus
like" behaviour.  Regardless, there _is_ something wrong when a foreign
entity (ie: NU) attaches itself to my kernel, and induces it to lie about
the number of free blocks on my system.  'Nuff said.

>  Perhaps you dislike NU becase it came from a company that specialized
>  in DOS utilities (BTW, symantec is more famous for making Macintosh
>  utilities)??  If so, I don't blame you.  I don't use NU, and as a
>  matter of fact dislike it, but I found your arguments questionable.

I'm glad you question my aguments; it would be a lousy world if everyone
agreed.  So, okay, I'll admit it.  I am a UNIX purist.  Ah well, we all 
have our faults. :-)

-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?