Linux heads This book is actually quite funny. (remember its over 10 years old - Oh go read the web page you get the idea)
From somebody at Sun who has been here over 16 years:- > I have just discovered that an old favourite of mine, "The UNIX Hater's > Handbook", is now available for download from what appears to be > the author's web page at Microsoft. > http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/unix-haters.html It's only > a 3.5 MB PDF, and Dennis Ritchie's "Anti-Forword" alone is worth > the download effort! > > It should give anyone pause to contemplate how many of the legitmate > complaints buried within this amusing volume still survive today. > > I do find it amusing that all of the viable volume alternatives to a > Microsoft world are now, in fact, UNIX (Linux, OS/X, and well, us of course). > If UNIX is "the English of computing" or "lingua franca", if you prefer), > then the Microsoft stack is surely a mix of pig-latin and hieroglyphics. > > Have a great weekend, > -- Bob Sneed What's real funny is as you read the history you keep realizing that you can replace UNIX with Linux and it still sounds correct. Example:- Like any good drug dealer, AT&T gave away free samples of Unix to university types during the 1970s. Researchers and students got a better high from Unix than any other OS. It was cheap, it was malleable, it ran on relatively inexpensive hardware. And it was superior, for their needs, to anything else they could obtain. Better operating systems that would soon be competing with Unix either required hardware that universities couldn t afford, weren't free, or weren't yet out of the labs that were busily synthesizing them. AT&T's policy produced, at no cost, scads of freshly minted Unix hackers that were psychologically, if not chemically, dependent on Unix. Could read:- Like any good drug dealer, Linus gave away free samples of Linux to everybody during the 1980s. Researchers and students got a better high from Linux than any other OS. It was free, it was malleable, it ran on relatively inexpensive hardware. And it was superior, for their needs, to anything else they could obtain. Better operating systems that would soon be competing with Linux either required hardware that universities couldn t afford, weren't free, or weren't yet out of the labs that were busily synthesizing them. This policy produced, at no cost, scads of freshly minted Linux hackers that were psychologically, if not chemically, dependent on Linux Now you have something to read over the summer :-) -- Rgds Trevor ------------------------------------------------------------------- To remove yourself from this list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the body of the message.
