Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[Jerry Gitomer]

Michael Stefanik writes:

:In an article, minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!s900387 (Craig Macbride) writes:
::If Norton's stuff continues to be this unwieldy, the last thing I'd want to do
::is subject my Unix system to it.

:<< Flame On! ::

:I just read this most _nauseating_ review by Steven Vaughan-Nichols in
:this month's Computer Shopper.  Let me provide you with a few entertaining
:highlights ...

:	"If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you
:	 really start screaming.  That's because you've just deleted every
:	 file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in
:	 and every directory below it."

:This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the
:directory of files that you are trying to remove.  The permissions of the
:file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied.  Superusers don't
:casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long.

:	"Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ...
:	"All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will
:	 be back.  Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files
:	 that have been deleted since you installed Norton."

:Could this be because "nue" is a kludge that accomplishes file recovery
:with smoke and mirrors?  If you said "Yes!", then you win a prize.  What
:_does_ Norton do?

:	"Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing
:	 'removed' files to a hidden directory"

:Now is this fucking ugly, or what?  They want me to spend money on this
:trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes
:the exact same thing?  If you want it in your code, then simply write
:your own flavor of unlink().  They must be out of their minds to want money
:for this tripe.

:	"If deletion protection was the only thing that Norton Utilities
:	 for System V did for you it would be with its $199 price."

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and in a free market
economy value is determined by what someone is willing to
pay -- not by the perceptions of someone who has no need and
no interest in what is being offered for sale.

Your solution is not acceptable in many UNIX shops because
it is over the heads of the system administrators, these
organizations have no programmers, and they don't even know
enough to explain what they want to a programmer.  

Growth in UNIX is going to mean a much higher percentage of
shops run by the computer ignorant for the benefit of the
computer illiterate.  Unfortunately, the systems
administrators in these places aren't (in my experience)
interested in learning anything beyond the minimum about UNIX and
the computer since their other duties take precedence over
the care and feeding of the computer system.  Their
alternatives are to buy packages like the Norton Utilities
or (hopefully) stumble across, purchase, and implement the
shell scripts in Russell Sage's book "Tricks of the UNIX
Masters".  

I would rather see them become educated and qualified users,
but I would rather see them buy the Norton Utilities than to
suffer the consequences of doing nothing.

:technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
:found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."

In the future they will be saying "Well, it worked on my DOS
machine -- why can't I do that using UNIX?"  It is up to the
UNIX community to provide a new class of tools aimed at the
needs of the "unwilling users" who will be migrating to our
systems in the future.

-- 
Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
Ma Bell (703)683-9090      (UUCP:  ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry