Baslinux mailing list

[3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org]

Greg Mayman wrote:
>
> I can do most of the basic functions of linux exactly 
> as I do them in DOS, once I have become used to the 
> different names (ls instead of dir, for instance).

Have you tried doing dir in BL3?  It works.
So does cd, copy, del, ren and edit.

> What I find difficult is the structure of linux. 

I shouldn't be that difficult for a DOS user.
Windows and Mac users find the transition much
more difficult.

> So many directories,

My DOS installation has lots of directories too.
It's the best way to organize things.  However,
I did know one DOS user who unzipped everything
in the top directory.  A real mess.

> and stuff that has to be in the correct place 
> or it won't work.  This is NOT a concept I am 
> used to.

Really?  In DOS there several files that must be 
in the top directory -- otherwise DOS won't boot.
In Linux the equivalent files go in /etc.  It's
not that different.

> And which files are specially related to certain 
> things, like /etc/rc.

/etc/rc is equivalent to config.sys in DOS.

> My DOS experience hasn't help with that kind of thing. 

Your DOS experience should help because conceptually
DOS and Linux are similar.  Specifically:

(1) When DOS boots, it runs two startup files:  
    config.sys and autoexec.bat.  When BL3 boots, 
    it runs two startup files: /etc/rc and /etc/profile  

(2) Both DOS and Linux put core executables in special 
    directories, DOS in \DOS and Linux in /bin and /sbin.

(3) Both DOS and Linux have a path setting to indicate
    the other directories where executables are.
 
(4) Both DOS and Linux use conceptually similar commands
    for creating/deleting/copying directories and files.

(5) In both DOS and Linux files have attributes which
    can be altered.

Newbies coming to Linux from non-DOS backgrounds will
find some of those concepts quite alien.  As a DOS user 
you have a head start on the learning curve.

> And doing dumb exercises from the linux CLI isn't 
> going to help me either.

I'm surprised to hear a DOS user refer to the command
line as dumb.

> And mc is just one such application, as is links.

mc is just a file manager.  It doesn't do anything
you can't do for yourself at the command line.
links, on the other hand, enables you to do lots
of stuff you can't do for yourself.  It's a very
useful tool and well worth the space.

Cheers,
Steven