On Tuesday 03 June 2003 21:23, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
* Mon, 02 Jun 2003, suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com: <snip>
I have to disagree with you a little on this one. For example, it is common to say things "cat the file", which for a newbie is very confusing because they are not aware of the fact cat is a command and that the expression means to "display the contents of the file using 'cat' command". Yes, if we choose we can continue to speak in terms that the average use does not understand, thus loosing many to Windows where you don't need that special vocabulary.
But that special vocabulary is *part* of the thing you try to teach. It isn't an "option" to use it or not, it's *unavoidable*. Your example is flawed btw; cat is not a command to show the contents of a file, it is a command to concatenate files to stdout.
I agree to some extent. However, saying "cat the file" to the unitiated is confusing. Your translation of what I said wrong (an english language problem???). I never said "cat is a command to show the contents of a file." (Re-read what I wrote!) I said " the expression means to "display the contents of the file using 'cat' command". Thus, that statement is not flawed. Making the statement "cat the file" you are instructing the person to "display the contents of the file using 'cat' command". Which is exactly what I said. ;-)
Also I think your example of a "medicine course" in appropriate. If I were a first year medical student, then I would not expect the professors to change the vocabular. However, the better comparison would be a freshmen biology course. Yes, in such cases, the vocabular **is** changed in order to ensure that it is at the level of most of the students.
Why is the your comparison better then mine? Should I use another example, like a foreign language course where the material is taught in the lingo it is about?
Because you usually don't start off on the first day teaching only in the foreign language. There are intensive language course that attempt that, but those are the exceptions. That what a first year medical student would be taking. Most people would be taking the freshmen biology course and inundating them with a lot of new vocabulary is in appropriate. At the beginning of a foreign language course you don't talk about things like past present progressive or explain what a gerund is. Instead your built up to it. Also in the foreign language class the material is **not** taught in the lingo it is about. If it were you would be talking about the linguistic of the language from day one. You typically don't. That usually comes in after the student is proficient, just likem a Linux course.
often you must execute a command to put the new config data into play. This needs to be explained.
These are admin tasks, not Joe Luser's
Sorry, but if I were a newbie, or a simple user of Linux I would be insulted by that comment. It is extemely demeaning to refer to someone as a "looser" simple because they are "only" a user. It is the apparent elitist attitude that many seem to have that turns a lot of people away from Linux. I feel that such terms and your overall attitude are very condescending.
As others explained, 'luser' is not ment in a insulting way, it is just a term used for (mainly Unix) users who (have to) rely on a sysadmin for administrative jobs.
Also "As others explained" there are interpretations where it is considered
insulting. As Anders pointed out:
Second, Linux expects the user to be much more of an administrator than Windows. Therefore, knowing that simply changing a configure file is not sufficient is something that a newbie should be told. How else are they going to know.
If the user is going to his/her own admining then yes, of course they need to know, but this knowledge is much more part of "know your applications" than "know Linux", because there are lots of different ways in which apps can react to a SIGHUP, or SIGUSR1 or whatever.
Just what are you getting at? If you want to say Linux is just the kernel (which would be completely accurate) then it was my mistake to say this is a class on Linux. However, if we take your approach and use the *common* jargon of this mailing list, then Linux is also all of the application that a provide with any given distribution. Thus, knowing that sending a SIGHUP to certain "applications" (i.e. deamons) will get them to re-read the configuration file. <snip>
Hmmmmm. Obviously you are not refering to the HOWTOs. They are intended to explain HOWTO do something and thus are tutorial in nature and not just reference. Although I would agree that the man-pages are references, "most" of the documentation I am aware of it tutorial in nature and not just for reference. So much stems from the time when there wasn't any documentation on how to do things so people wrote *tutorials* telling you how.
Even HOWTOs do not teach people the indepths about something they try to accomplish, just the commands to get the job done. Another situation, with another distro or OS like FreeBSSD and the HOWTO can be totally useless because it doesn't explain exactly *why* it does the things in that particular way.
That wasn't the point. The point was the difference between a tutorial and a reference. HOWTOs are typically tutorial in nature and not references <snip> regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.