Talk:The Unix-Haters Handbook
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Unix-Haters Handbook article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Stub-class)|
Change of opinion
It's not clear to me why this edit was made:
19:49, 27 November 2005 18.104.22.168 (→External links)
I removed one of the external links a day or so prior to that because it returned 404. The remaining external link is still valid, and, indeed, is a download page for the Handbook itself. As well, the stub tag was removed, and this article probably still qualifies as a stub, doesn't it? Am I missing something here? PaulHoadley 10:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of an explanation, then, I've reverted that edit and restored the single functioning external link. I notice this has happened before, and I assume it's vandalism. PaulHoadley 02:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Page move proposal
I believe (but could very well be mistaken) that the correct title of the book is 'The UNIX-HATERS Handbook', as opposed to 'The UNIX-Haters Handbook'. This seems to be inline with the 'UNIX-HATERS' mailing list that the majority of the messages within the book are taken from. If this is true (as it seems to be) Then we should move the page from 'The UNIX-Haters Handbook' to 'The UNIX-HATERS Handbook'. Thoughts? --Ryanfantastic 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like we've reached a consensus! Thanks Marudubshinki for moving the page. --Ryanfantastic 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Added the tag because statements such as "both the intellectual content and the communicational tenor of the book are altogether so fraught with immaturity, envy, and utter nonsense" are clearly simply uncited opinions of the author unfit for an encyclopedia.Mahewa 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- They've been removed. I'd just have nuked them if I were you, stuff like that isn't worth wasting time debating. Chris Cunningham 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody please add a citing to the fact that the creators admit C, Unix were hoax?
It would be amazing if more people would know that the very creators of C and Unix ADMITTED that both projects were hoaxes and that Unix is one big fart. Not o mention everything else that followed it.
It would be nice if someone would also add this on the Unix Wikipedia page.
- Well, yes, they were alledged to have admittted this - but the date of the story is a clue :-) Snori (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys, this Handbook has opened my eyes to what a plague Unix really is. And I think I could safely say the same about everything Unix-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The book is now rather dated
"The book is now rather dated, most of the material being from around 1990, and many of the problems cited no longer exist..."
While this is true, it kind of misses the point being that many of the problems mentioned still exist in modern unix systems (after 20 years!). In fact, it is not beyond reason to expect the problems (overuse of c/c++, inconsistencies in the user interface, deficiencies of the shell) to exist in the next 20 years. I feel this deserves mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:50:AA11:377:1D0A:6003:CEEB:D237 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)