"The only piece of advice I am going to give you is this:

Shut the hell up and type this in then try to understand it.

Sorry to be mean, but that's what you have to do. You have an irrational fear of the command line and the only way to conquer an irrational fear is to just shut up and fight through it."

Why say "shut the hell up"? Why assume that the reader has an irrational fear? Most people are just trying to learn because they currently don't know. Not because they are afraid. They don't need some kind of drill sergeant to aggressively push them into it. They've already taken the initiative to seek out the knowledge and begin reading it.

As for why I wrote it: You may not have an irrational fear but a huge number of Windows and OSX users do. They've been told that the CLI is dangerous and antiquated so they avoid it and panic over it. Having someone like me just push them through actually gets them past that and on to learning how to use it.

Regarding the tone of the text, it's not the word hell specifically - it's the overall tone, which is echoed elsewhere. You could've said "Shut your yap..." and that would have been just as bad. Why are you browbeating or scolding your readers as though they are misbehaved children? Telling someone to shut it is condescending, dismissive, offensive, and simply rude.

It's like you're trying to help me, but you've been pushed into it and are now pissed off. And god damnit we're going to get through this one way or the other and if you have to beat me into submission and force my hand then that's what you'll do.

It's just a personal opinion. I find it makes the experience less pleasant with that kind of writing.

I'm sure better tutorials have been available for years. E.g. http://linuxcommand.org/learning_the_shell.php

The "learn by rote" method he's using here is designed to help people with little or no experience catch up quickly, and remember what they've learned without the many years of daily use.

If you just want to learn the odd helpful new trick, and basically know what you're doing, just ignore these parts.

> No, seriously, type it 20 times and say it out loud. Sssh. Just do it.

I supposed it was a kind of cold joke but it appears not to be. It is just very disrespectful for the reader. Grown up human beings are not to be taken by the hand like /this/ to learn something as serious and advanced as command line.

Seriously. Shh. Just do it. Shh meaning stop all the opinionating. Just do it meaning only do that and not all the surrounding fuss and bluster.

It's not disrespectful, it's pragmatic, you're reading his book to learn, what are you doing thinking things like "I don't want to type it 20 times, I've typed it 5 times and I know it already, this is stupid, it's boring, I'm not saying it out loud, that's embarassing, blah blah blah"? You chose to read this book to learn, do what he says. No, shh, just do it.

Also, smart people learn to skim and skip when needed. Writing like thus serves both cause the smarter ones skip.

(As any short description, my "portrait" maybe a bit of a caricature but I believe it expresses the meaning well enough.)

1. All geeks learned the command line at some point. Even Linus. Calling the next Linux a "wannabee geek" is wrong.

2. basic training is for all soldiers, not just infantry soldiers. You choose infantry for the baggage it carried, and you didn't care that you were flat wrong.

3. I find your use of "pavlovian reflex" wrong. It has a negative connotation, but is all reflexive action "pavlovian". If so, all of my command line use is pavlovian because I do it reflexively without conscious thought. With that in mind, the military style is perfect because it's designed to train people to do things reflexively when the time comes.

4. basic training teaches many great things. You're dismissal of it as teaching people to "run below a shower of bombs" is wrong. I learned CPR amongst many other good things in basic. Things that again require one to do them almost reflexively, just like I use the command line.

In short, you are wrong.

2. It was an example and he never said basic training was ONLY for infantry.

3. You say all reflexive action is pavlovian but then say that using the term pavlovian reflex is wrong. That is wrong.

4. He never indicated that basic training doesn't teach some decent things. However, it does also teach people to act on orders without thought. You may not like the reality communicated, but the reality is that one of the objectives for basic training is to indoctrinate and enforce conformity. So that when you do have to run below a shower of bombs and bullets you don't question it, you just do it.

In short, nothing he wrote was wrong. You just didn't like it.

He thought otherwise, and since this the core of the issue, I believe he is wrong on the primary point.

His wording was intended to imply negative things with loose language, and if you can't see that then you can't.

I'll give one example. I said, "Grown adults are taught in a manner similar this everyday in basic training for the army."

He said, "You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets."

You claim he didn't say that basic is ONLY for infantry. True, but then I have no idea what he was saying. I said that basic is a good model for teaching reflexive action. He was responding to that, so he was either creating a straw man with the infantry thing, or he did get it wrong that basic is ONLY for infantry.

Right?

A wannabe (slang for "want to be") is a person with an ambition to be someone or something that she/he is not. The term is pejorative and intends to convey the foolish nature of the desire due to the incompetence of the "wannabe" to accomplish the goal.

Copy and pasting usually means you never knew what the code said anyway.

Typing it once means you will remember it till the end of the day but tomorrow? The day after?

Typing it 20 times and saying it out loud to yourself helps it stick. There is no need to run to Google to look up the command. You should know it after doing it this many times. Especially if in the following days you recap with some basic memory exercises.

I have always thought that this is what set's Zed Shaw's books apart. They teach you a language in a way that sticks.

If you don't find it useful or for your style of learning pick up a book focusing more on theory rather than doing.

What happened: People reporting of being insulted.

So you failed, why not use the feedback to improve the thing instead of making it personal.

I don't think that's part of the goal.

That's a problem with you which you should fix, instead of getting all defensive and whiny.

I don't like "for the dummies" books either, I think this relatively new way to write books teaching something is no good for anyone. Showing a supposedly humorous disrespect for the reader seems to be acceptable in some cultures. It is not in mine. A very strong bullshitting of the reader is ok in some literary works, as it is part of the facture of the book (I am thinking LF Celine), but it is not ok in utilitarian literature.

But, you'd tell me, it is a first-world problem, I can live with this new trend (it will be replaced soon enough), as long as I am allowed to express out-fashioned point of views in places like HN.

Though you see that your culture is not everyone's, not acceptable within your culture is not equivalent to not acceptable full stop.

Not everyone agrees with your permissions rule distinctions between instructional works and literary works, but this does not mean that what they are doing is not ok.

Being criticized is not the same as not being allowed to express yourself.

P.S.: Characterizing all possible arguments against your position as soon to be replaced trendiness disqualifies anyone from having a discussion on this subject with you, and pre-insults anyone who would want to.

Just a note: When I said "Showing disrespect for the reader seems to be acceptable in some cultures. It is not in mine.", it was just a polite way to say. (To say what? I just wrote it, but after some thought I yanked the thing. It was talking about culture as universal need for cultivation of oneself, aka education, aka civilization.)