Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[Kenneth Herron]

I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix.  You
can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and
more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default.
Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*,
not an end in itself.  Some people may be more interested in using the
computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus.

In article <430 at bria>:

>[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"]

>	"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.

Exactly correct.  You can protect a file five ways from tuesday and it
won't mean diddly against "rm -f".  How intuitive is that?  And needless
to say, "rm -f" works for regular users too.  Should everyone be forced
to recover from this mistake the hard way, just to "learn their lesson?"
Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly,
it should be used?

Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster
than digging out the backup tape.  And of course it restores the latest
version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version.

>	"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."

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

>Now is this f*****g 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().  

This feature has been discussed on USENET before.  As I recall, it 
intercepts several system calls, including unlink, ftruncate, and statfs.
If you do "cat a b > a" you can get a back.  The space taken by these backup 
files is reported as free by all the system calls, and is automatically freed 
for real if you need it (backup files are dumped in a user-configurable way).

Further, this package is targeted toward System V unix systems, which, last 
time I checked, don't come with source.  How is the average SysV user to 
replace the unlink()s in system code?  Heck, we have Sysv source around
here somewhere, but I'm not about to go recompile the whole OS just to
replace all the unlinks and ftruncates.

>	"Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk
>	 explorer, NDE.  This program makes disk and file-system
>	 exploration and editing much easier." ...
>	"Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can
>	 be edited."

>Please say it ain't so.  Please!  Please!  Not yet another fantastic way
>for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI.  I think
>I'm going to be ill.

There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-)
Seriously, how often do you edit a file system?  I've never had to do it, 
so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface.  If 
you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest.

>	"The goodies don't stop here.  Norton includes more than 10 other
>	 usefull utilities.  There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell
>	 Enhancer.  This program provides a way to attach bells and
>	 whistles to Unix shell programs."

>Oh God.  Please.  Not another 'beep' command.  Haven't these idiots ever
>noticed the 'tput' command?

Tput doesn't have an explicit "beep" option; to get a beep from it,
you'll have to know something about curses, as well as know about
tput itself.  Not everyone is a power user like you.  Heck, echo ^G
might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just 
because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants
or bank managers than unix wizards?

>Disclaimer:  I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX.
>I never will.  Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and
>leave the UNIX world alone.  This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and
>I say this with great pride.

I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion.  IMHO your attitude is a
pretty poor one for a "systems engineer."  Not everyone has the time,
inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that
matter).  Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not
use computers at all?  The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the
computer priesthood are supposed to be over.  For the sake of the other
employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but 
your own.

>-- 
>Michael Stefanik                       | Opinions stated are not even my own.
>Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 ..."
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                            kherron at ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                        (606) 257-2975
Department of Mathematics 
                                "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- the Doctor