> I must admit that this was an extremely poor way to open a
> conversation. Whilst surfing the 'Net, I tend to bounce back
> and forth between newsgroups and Web pages. That particular
> Web page hit me wrong; after reading my message again, I see
> "beware, FLAME coming", and apologize for this.

You don't need to be too apologetic. A good argument is always welcome. I wouldn't have replied if your message had been all flame and no content.

> Your Pick titles are (understandably) out of print. It's still
> a viable (albeit fading) platform, and I feel fortunate that I
> was able to purchase them when I did. I refer to them daily.

I have a fondness for those books myself. They were among our best. I always regretted that the Pick community tried to hide the underlying software from the user so much. Application developers often wanted to keep users in their pocket, and were afraid of too much information...so they didn't create a "hacker culture", which is what made UNIX and the Internet so infectious a virus.

> Your Unix/Linux books are unquestionably the best in the market.
>
> I do feel that my O'Reilly references are the best that I own.

Thanks.

> Alas...that attitude is too common among the fringe.
>
> My "Webster's" defines fringe as "1. at the
> outer edge or border... 3. less important; as, fringe
> industries." I'm not sure which "fringe" my
> attitude places me in, and am wondering what part(s) of my
> message caused you to relegate me there. Was it because I used
> "bug-ridden" to describe the Microsoft platform,
> mentioned Pick, or expressed an interest in UNIX/Linux?

Well, fringe was probably too strong a word on my part. I think of the Richard Stallman end of the free software movement as fringe, for instance--versus the Robert Schiefler (of X fame)/Larry Wall version, which sees free software as an enabler for commercial activities as well as for more freeware. There's a balanced view, and a polarized view.

I was thinking of the freeware/commercial axis in this context partly because I'd just come from our very successful Perl Conference, where this was one of the topics of discussion.

The Microsoft vs. UNIX thing is often similarly polarized. Now, I've done my share of Microsoft bashing, but I like to think it's always for cause. What's more, I try to do something about the things I don't like.

I was somewhat appalled by one ad-hoc BOF session at the Perl Conference, when a new user tried to ask a question about using Perl on NT, and was basically derided and told to get a real machine. That's not my attitude, and that's not Larry's attitude. We know Perl has had some problems on NT-- so we're working to fix them!

Similarly, our approach to documenting MS products is designed to make up for some of the problems we see there--to make life better for users. Precisely because the MS environment has serious problems, it's a great area for us to be publishing in.

> In my case, the documentation from MS has pretty much been
> non-existant since the advent of the CD-Rom, and the
> "syncophantic documentation" has not covered any
> topics that an experienced user couldn't find in a help file.
> It's been a year and some months since I've bought any reference
> book pertaining to any MS platform/app.

I know--it's amazing how many computer books are just a superficial rehash of the GUI and online help. But this isn't limited to MS products. Look at the Netscape books as well.

> I'm ordering four NIC's next week. I'm starting with my Windows
> platforms. Eventually I'll include the PowerStack and the Linux
> boxes.

Yes, interoperability is what's happening. So let's make it work!

> My signature of "System Adminstrator/Programmer" was
> the closest "real world" description of my job that I
> could find. In reality I am a "one-man-MIS-department"
> for a small company with 24 employees. All 24 use terminals
> connected to a SCSI terminal server which is in turn connect to
> our Motorola Powerstack. It runs Advanced Pick over AIX 4.1. In
> addition, we're running Windows 95 on 3 486's and two pentiums,
> WFW on another two 486's, Windows 3.1 on an aging Zenith 386
> laptop, and Windows 95 on another two Zenith 486-100's. I'm
> also running Linux in a dual-boot mode on the Pentiums.

> From day to day I write PickBasic programs, bsh scripts, and C
> programs. I've a few VBA Excel/Word programs to my name as well.
> I deal with files from MSDos, Windows, AS 400's, RISC 6000's and
> various flavors of UNIX on a weekly basis. I deal with clients
> running antique 286's with ProComm, and talk them through
> transferring files to my system. I'm a one-man-help desk,data
> detective, and occasionally have to fill our data entry slot.

Exactly. I think there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of users like you, who have a lot of different boxes to support. Our publishing program is aimed right at that problem.

I also will make another plug for Perl--as a cross-platform automation language, it makes a huge difference in trying to tie all these things together and make them work.

> I have experienced nothing but frustration with Windows 95 for the
> past two years! I no longer feel I have control of my computer when
> Windows 95 is running. I feely admit that I've no experience with NT,
> but, based on the performance of Win95, I'm extremely hesitant about
> trying it out.

I agree that Win95 is a monster. That's exactly why we thought Windows Annoyances was such a great title--and why the book is rapidly becoming a bestseller.

NT is more stable.

> My Win95 box crashes, blue-screens, or hangs a dozen times or more
> a day. Examining my system logs on my AIX box shows that it has
> been rebooted once a month for the past six months. Once was to
> replace a defective SCSI terminal server. Three other times we
> physically lost power. Another time I shut the system down
> because of an impending flood from hurricane Danny.

Agreed. I reboot my win95 laptop at least once every time I use it. My Sun workstation hardly ever.

> And, about Perl, what happens when MS decides to try and co-opt
> the Perl language because not all versions support the
> Microsoft API?

That's a worry, certainly. But "it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

> I took a second look at your Web page today, and I'll take a look
> at your books the next time I'm in my local Barnes & Noble. But I'm
> still dismayed at the encroachment of titles concerning the Redmond
> giant at the expense of titles about other OS's. The Unix section is
> one third the size it was a year ago, and OS/2 commands a single 3
> foot shelf. I'm dismayed that my choices seem to be diminshing.

Yes, but look at the Internet section, which didn't even exist when we first published Ed Krol's Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog five years ago. That did more to shrink the MS section than virtually anything else. Now you see a Java section as well and you're starting to see Perl sections cropping up. So MS doesn't hold all the cards.

I continue to see a huge amount of innovation in the freeware sector. Innovation in UNIX per se slowed down radically when its corporate parents took it away from the freeware and university crowd who had source licenses and were happily building on the work of others.

I do think that the big competition to Microsoft isn't another Microsoft wannabe corporation, but the network of independent developers that has been the source of much of the innovation in our industry over the last ten years. Those people are currently clustered around the web, linux, apache, and perl.

> I've rambled on far longer than I meant to. If you've read this far,
> I thank you. I don't expect another reply, but if one is forthcoming,
> I'll welcome it. Thanks again for the time you spend replying to a
> "guy in the tenches" in Mobile, AL.

Thanks for your time as well.