Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[The Grey Wolf]

In article <kherron.666298945 at s.ms.uky.edu> kherron at ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>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.

I think Mr. Herron has missed the point about Mr. Stefanik's criticism of
the Norton Utilities.  If people are interested in using the computer,
then they should be at least literate enough to be able to read a manual
should the need arise.  Most certainly if they're not adept enough to
be able to write scripts/programs/whatever, that's probably not what
they're paid to do, and unless they're willing to expend some time and
energy to learn how, they probably shouldn't bother.

>
>In article <430 at bria>:
>
>>[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"]
>

 [ rm -rf <dir> causes user panic... ]
 
>>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?"

Hey, man, if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to have to
find out one way or another.  One way is to RTFM before you go gallivanting
about the filesystem -- or even your own directory structure -- while
wielding all the weapons in /bin.  Another way is to issue a bogus command
line option and see what the program says (the lazy man's manual, and I
curse programs that have neither a man page nor a useful usage message!).
Yet another way is trial and error.  This is not the recommended MO for
the beginner.

>Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly,
>it should be used?

You want UNIX user-friendly?  Fine.  Write a menu suite.  Use a semi-
restricted shell.  Write your own commands.  Sell it.  Make a fortune.
I do hope you wouldn't plan on making user-friendliness a de facto standard.

>
>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.

You want an undeleter?  I have an "rm" file recovery suite which I will
be more than happy to distribute once I get it organized again.  You could
probably write one yourself.  I did it more or less as a programming exer-
cise, but I use it on a regular basis.  It's *extremely* rare I delete
anything I don't mean to (as a superuser, one learns to read their command
lines five times over before pressing <RETURN>...), but when I do, my
own setup saves my ass.

>
>>	"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).

Grand.  This is such a great idea, I could jump for joy.

Whoop de fucking do.

Now I have the system lying to me about the disk space that's there.
"I overflowed the filesystem and need to use even beyond the minfree
threshhold.  Sorry, you won't be able to recover those files anymore!"
Or does it tack them on to the end of swap and hope your system doesn't
thrash?

>
>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.

You'd trust some outside program to come in and do a binary patch on your
kernel and possibly the system object modules?  What *do* you do for a
living, anyway?  You're not a sysadmin; this much is clear.

>
>>	"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 :-)

Truly said ("dd if=/vmunix of=/dev/kmem", though under sun 4.1+ even this
doesn't work...), but most of them, given preparation, are recoverable.

>Seriously, how often do you edit a file system?  I've never had to do it,

Lucky you.  Avoid it if you can.

>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.

Fsdb is fairly decent.  It's when you have to use adb that it gets tricky,
and even then you can manage to create all the right scripts and macros
to handle what you need.  If you need more than one file, go get the backup
tapes.  It's easier.

EMACS directory mode doesn't seem to do anything fancy; it just looks
good. (???)

>
>>	"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?

As Mr. Stefanik has also pointed out, if they're secretaries or accountants
or bank managers, they're not going to have the @#(#@(* TIME to be playing
with boxes or beeps or creating their own menus.  They'll probably be
menu-fied anyway.

>
>>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?

So the person who can write a good menu interface for the naive user on top
of UNIX will make a fortune.  If you expect to have any flexibility, you had
better be prepared to learn how to use your system to some degree of
proficiency.  It doesn't mean that you need to learn how to do wizardly
things, it just means that you need to learn what your machine will and will
not let you do.  It's like driving a car -- you have to learn how to do it.
You will notice that it does take some people an inordinate amount of time
to even learn how to drive a car (and it's NOT necessarily because of lack
of intellect, bad eyesight, finances or mental or physical incapacity).

>The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the
>computer priesthood are supposed to be over.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the days of the "computer priesthood"
are *far* from over, and, selfish/elitist as it sounds, I hope they never
are.  Hell, do you think that we should have to stop "bowing down" to the
"auto repair priesthood"?  How do you propose that we would accomplish this?
It's too damned complex.  If you don't want to have to get your car fixed,
learn to do it yourself.  I don't have the time to learn this at the
moment, so I have it fixed by someone who knows what they are doing.

You're effectively saying that even if someone doesn't know how to drive
that they should not have to learn.  (It's already unfortunate enough that
people don't drive courteously.)

>For the sake of the other
>employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but 
>your own.

Sirrah, as part of a system admin team, it is our *responsibility* to the
users to make sure that files are backed up in a timely manner, to
know how to recover from disasters, to know how to help the user with any
problem they may have.  We do the best we can.  If we have time-critical
data which requires backing up on a more frequent level than a single day,
we are equipped to do so.

If the naive user needs something that isn't there, we write it.  If the
naive user doesn't understand something and doesn't have immediate access or
interest in a manual, we explain it.  I guess we're just lucky enough to
have naive users who know how to take notes on what to do when something
goes wrong (they have all learned how to fix many things themselves).

>
>>-- 
>>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 ..."

That about says it.

>-- 
>Kenneth Herron                                            kherron at ms.uky.edu
>                                "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- the Doctor
				 ^^^^
With a .sig quote like that, you're defending NORTON for UNIX?  Come on.

--
The above comments are solely the opinions of the author.  Nothing written,
said or communicated in this article can be construed to be the opinion or
the policy of UniSoft Corporation or any other employee therein unless
explicitly stated by said employee.
-- 
# The days of the computer priesthood are not over.
# May they never be.
# If it sounds selfish, consider how most companies stay in business.