But really for dummies: a rant

[hazel]

Today I took a book called Linux Programming for Dummies out of my public library. I usually enjoy "For Dummies" books. They're amusing and well-written, and they pack in a lot of real knowledge. But this one really got my goat.

OK, it was written in 2001 and Linux has moved on a bit since then. I didn't actually use Linux at that time but I'm sure it was already a more advanced system than Jim Keogh seems to think. Here is a sample quote: "Linux displays only characters on-screen unless a fancy Motif program is running on the computer. A Motif program makes the Linux interface look like that of Windows." By "Motif" he seems to mean X. I don't know that Motif was ever part of Linux; I seem to remember that it was a proprietary GUI used with Unix. But Linux certainly had plenty of decent GUIs in 2001.

Here is another one: "Most programs that you use on a PC have the .exe extension...The computer can jump right into the program and follow your instructions as fast as a speeding bullet. You don't get this same performance with Linux programs. Programs that you write in most other computer languages are compiled... but that's not the case for Linux." As if even the earliest versions of Linux were not more hospitable to home-made C and C++ programs than Windows has ever been!

As you might also guess from this passage, the author thinks Linux is a programming language. He says so again and again. But then, every now and again, he compares Linux to Windows, and Windows is certainly not a programming language! What are the readers supposed to think? What he is actually talking about of course is the shell - just which shell I have no idea, but it doesn't seem to be bash, because he feels the need to formally declare all his variables and I have never seen that done in a bash script.

The target audience for "For Dummies" books is expected to be intelligent and interested but not knowledgeable. It is precisely people like this who need clear explanations of basic principles - yes, in simple and straightforward language, free from jargon, but also free from confusion and obfuscation. And "For Dummies" is a well-known series that most people trust. No wonder there are so many weird notions about Linux out there if this is the kind of book they are reading

[Segfault]

That's interesting. One of my new colleagues is a self-proclaimed software guru. The other day I heard him explaining to somebody Linux does not have binaries, it runs by executing C sources. I was wondering where he got such a "knowledge" ...

[chigurh]

That's ridiculous. It sounds like a Windows infomercial, or like they're apologizing for Linux to people who use Windows and decide to read their books and learn something about Linux.

[D-cat]

Heh, if that were true, the whole operating system would be as slow to execute as a java applet - every step of the way.

My guess from Hazel's description is that he was using the C shell (csh), which was already dying at the time (popular in the mid 90's) and has since been formally declared a hazard that should not ever be used out of a sandbox (VM).

I don't know what version was tested or for how long Jim Keogh had actually played with Linux, but IMO it was obviously not long enough to be qualified to write any kind of how-to book about it.

[hazel]

My guess from Hazel's description is that he was using the C shell (csh), which was already dying at the time (popular in the mid 90's) and has since been formally declared a hazard that should not ever be used out of a sandbox (VM).

No actually it was bash, as I discovered later on in the book. He sometimes calls it bash, sometimes Linux, as if they were synonyms, and he talks about "Linux and other programming languages". He mentions csh and I think there's an appendix on it, but the main part of the book is definitely about bash (funny that he has these declare statements all over the place).

At one point, he describes Linux as "definitely a step backwards" compared with Windows and the Mac. He says that's why geeks like it. Grrr!

By the way, why is csh so dangerous?

[saivin]

Hazel, did you try to contact that guy. Either he is on M$ payrol or he really needs help...

[Freston]

At one point, he describes Linux as "definitely a step backwards" compared with Windows and the Mac. He says that's why geeks like it.

Well, you needed a lot more technical skill to run Linux in those days. And yes, people with technical skills use the most inferior option available to them, ehm, right??[/sarcasm]


A step back. Well it depends on your viewpoint. Windows XP, the one everybody loves atm, wasn't out then. Most people would be running W98 or WinME or something. Those wheren't all that great either. And XP didn't get it's recognition as the best OS from Redmond until SP1. XP was heavily plagued by driver issues and instability in it's early days. Also, it was named bloated. But that's all academic, it wasn't even out then.


Linux on the other hand was performing server roles and beginning to find it's way onto the the desktop. But most configuration was done by editing text files. X already existed on Linux, as did Gnome and KDE. They just didn't have GUI configuration tools as comprehensively as they do now.

A step back? Yes for high end gaming and such. Support for graphics cards was much worse than it is now.The same goes for wireless. It was never those things that made Linux popular. That came later.

But if our dear writer thinks Linux and BASH are interchangable or that either of them is a programming language I doubt he'd be able to give a balanced view of pros and cons of GNU/Linux as an alternative to anything. Specially in the light of it's time.

Hazel, did you try to contact that guy. Either he is on M$ payrol or he really needs help...

A quick google turns out he's done loads of books on Redmond based software. Also one about Unix programming, which should be interesting

___
This post was made without the benefit of a spelling checker

[KingX]

....By the way, why is csh so dangerous?

It is a very poor shell, which pales in comparison to bash. Here is the famous Tom Christiansen usenet post regarding the harms of using csh.

[Hal343]

It sounds like it should have been called "Linux by Dummies". In 2000, I was running Red Hat with both Gnome and KDE on an IBM 1412 laptop. What was he using?

[Crimsonfire]

Even for a novice like myself thats hilariously misguided. What publisher runs the For Dummies series? Bill Gates may have invested in it at some stage haha.

Thats a pity though because I was looking for a good Dummies book abut Linux. Any others you guys found useful?