<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> I have, and I repeat my query. The voluminous howto's generally manage to
> further cloud the issue for me.
One thing you're facing is that it's ALL new. At this point, a "dummies"
book or some such might be helpful. Linux is NOT intuitive and the howtos,
while helpful, vary widely in quality. Then again, about half the posts on
this list seem to be related to the "true hidden power" of a CLI, so there
should be no surprises there! Start with a good overview.
> [... /etc]
> Which hides where? I've seen it turn up in a variety of weird places at
> the start of the tree, well down one or another branch... I must be
> missing something, but the directory seems to slip dynamically about on
me.
You're probably seeing links in action. Under Linux/Unix, you can multiple
directory references pointing to a single file. So, depending on how things
are set up (or screwed up), you can have one "file" or "directory" appear in
multiple locations. This is neither good nor bad, just different. Once you
get used to it, no big deal.
> [...]
> No, now it's more confusing. I still don't get mounting, why if the stuff
> is there isn't it simply there?
> Why do I have to make a mount point and
> what then is a mount point? [...] Why can't it
> simply demonstrate the existence of hdb1/stuff/mystuff if those things are
> there?
They are "there" but the idea of limiting oneself to drives A-Z is pretty
constraining. Linux/Unix lets you mount devices according to LOGICAL
requirements rather than arbitrary sequential letters based on PHYSICAL
limitations. And links further let you do both!
If I have documents spread across two separate drives, why shouldn't they
all be organized under "documents" somewhere? Why should users know -- or
care -- that there are two metal spinning thingies in the box? What about
when I get a new drive and consolidate? "ATTENTION: Drive C: and D: are now
only C:. Aieee!"
Things get even goofier for DOS when you start to think in terms of
networks. DOS users always seemed to have a hard time giving up drive
letters back when I taught Novell classes, and it freaked them out when I
could magically "move" files between G: and H:. Peer to peer networks are
even more fun. "Uhm, your C: drive is my G: drive, right?"
I personally think it marks a real point of progress in one's networking
career (where applicable) when one can forget drive letters and think first
of the relationship between devices and systems. Links and drive letter
mapping make great shortcuts, but you can get pretty lost if you insist on
thinking of it all in terms of 26 (or so) letters instead of truly knowing
where things are. Even under DOS, drive letters are subject to change if you
modify your hardware config.
Just keep in mind that Unix pre-dates DOS by a long shot, and provides a
hell of a lot more power. It is very different, and I think it's a mistake
to try to draw too many parallels between it and a lesser OS. There are many
similaries for some things, but darned few for others.
> [...]
> >The equivalent to the autoexec.bat is the rc scripts.
> >They also live in the /etc directory.
> But my friend hans puts the mount command in /etc/fstab to get the machine
> to mount the particular directory on startup...
It's WAY more complicated than AUTOEXEC.BAT (runlevels and such) but
basically, a script somewhere under /etc/rc.d (or /etc/rc) eventually calls
mount which refers to /etc/fstab to know where to put things on startup.
> What does rc stand for?
Aside from the cola, runtime configuration if memory serves...
> [...]
> Assuming those applications are there... Also, I presume I am the one who
> aliases edit and that would mean being able to edit something and knowing
> where it is and how...
I suppose it would be simpler if we all used exactly one operating system
exactly one way. Hmm...
> >Just like DOS.
> No, because I've tried all the basic dos methods to get out of vi (if
> that's what it was) or read or wherever that blank screen with @ symbols
> down the side was. Sometimes f1 did something, I never really figured it
out.
Heh. vi is a whole different critter. It is an editor. That's about it as
far as similarities. And vi holy wars have been one of the most long running
and fruitless battles in history. Let's just say there are good books on vi,
but it is NOTHING like EDIT.COM -- although superficially similar to EDLIN
in some ways!
BTW: To get out of vi, [esc]:q or some variant will do the trick.
Just start at the beginning and work slowly. Linux, Solaris, HP-UX nor
anything else will look much like DOS. That's a good thing when all is said
and done. Just like language and religion, forcing your perceptions on it
won't always help understanding. Anytime I start with a new OS, I try to
think in terms of "how is this better" rather than "why does this have to be
different?"
Good luck!
- Bob
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
