Thomas Dickey wrote: > Rich Teer <rich.t...@rite-group.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stu wrote:
> >> How does the date command print TZ.
> >> For example,
> >> date > >> Tue Feb 22 18:19:44 EST 2005
> >> Does anybody have some sample "C" code that can do this
> > man strftime (and/or buy my book!)
> Actually > man date > is the preferred starting point. It does point to strftime, but provides > additional context.
> Given that, there's no point in buying your book, unless for research > purposes > one chooses to compare it against Stevens' book.
> > Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming" > (I'd use another word there)
Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
* several paragraphs seem eerily similar in Teer and Stevens (paragraph sequences that match, same order of ideas in paragraphs, even quite similar wording in sentences) * the majority of the diagrams in these chapters are nearly or exactly the same * the section titles are mostly the same, and in the same order * even the titles of the chapters are the same
It seems unlikely that could have happened by chance.
Comparing chapter 15 of Teer with chapter 8 of Stevens (both called Process Control), in most cases eaqch program in Teer matches one in Stevens, excepting changes in variables names, etc.
A rough scan shows other chapters which seem to have remarkable degrees of similarity.
Ian Clarke <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
probably.
I have notes on about 40% of the books (working from the beginning).
> I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment: > * several paragraphs seem eerily similar in Teer and Stevens > (paragraph sequences that match, same order of ideas in > paragraphs, even quite similar wording in sentences)
...except that the rewording in several instances is not as good as the original (saying something absurd), indicating a lack of comprehension on the part of the adapter.
> * the majority of the diagrams in these chapters are nearly or > exactly the same > * the section titles are mostly the same, and in the same order
mostly - there are a couple interchanges (no particular reason), and a couple of sections moved across chapters.
> * even the titles of the chapters are the same > It seems unlikely that could have happened by chance. > Comparing chapter 15 of Teer with chapter 8 of Stevens (both > called Process Control), in most cases eaqch program in Teer > matches one in Stevens, excepting changes in variables names, > etc.
In several cases (in the parts I've reviewed) the main program's content is moved to a subroutine.
> A rough scan shows other chapters which seem to > have remarkable degrees of similarity. > Very strange...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote: > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
I spent four years of my life writing my book, 3.5 of which I was otherwise unemployed for (yes, I quit my job to write my book). As a result, I am in a huge amount of debt, which will take quite a while to pay off.
If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point out the myriad of differences between the two books.
It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' on someone's parade.
-- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
Rich Teer <rich.t...@rite-group.com> wrote: > If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, > don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? > I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point > out the myriad of differences between the two books.
One of my associates has noted that it probably saved you about two years.
Certainly, there are other differences - material incorporated from Solaris manpages for instance.
> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' > on someone's parade.
Rich Teer wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books > > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer > > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens > > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
> I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing > style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why > I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't > be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
Yes. But the similarities (some very similarly constructed paragraphs and sentences, a near 1:1 match between the diagrams in the Process Relationships chapter and the programs in the Process Control chapter) I pointed out do not seem to be ones that would come about by chance; it is more than a matter of imitation of writing style.
> I spent four years of my life writing my book, 3.5 of which I > was otherwise unemployed for (yes, I quit my job to write my > book). As a result, I am in a huge amount of debt, which will > take quite a while to pay off.
> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, > don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? > I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point > out the myriad of differences between the two books.
Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities that is so striking.
> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' > on someone's parade.
No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books could be so similar.
Ian Clarke <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Rich Teer wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books >> > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer >> > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens >> > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
>> I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing >> style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why >> I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't >> be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
Steven's book is, however, not mentioned in the bibliography (only the 3 editions of the unrelated book on network programming).
There are other odd things which I have noticed about the bibliography.
> Yes. But the similarities (some very similarly constructed > paragraphs and sentences, a near 1:1 match between the > diagrams in the Process Relationships chapter and the programs > in the Process Control chapter) I pointed out do not seem to be > ones that would come about by chance; it is more than a matter > of imitation of writing style.
Some of the diagrams that I noticed are rotated by 90 degrees, but otherwise retaining the same structure and annotation.
>> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, >> don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? >> I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point >> out the myriad of differences between the two books. > Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities > that is so striking. >> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' >> on someone's parade. > No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books > could be so similar.
Well, I was curious, and asked. But I did not receive a proper answer.
Ian Clarke wrote: >>If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, >>don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? >>I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point >>out the myriad of differences between the two books.
> Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities > that is so striking.
>>It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' >>on someone's parade.
> No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books > could be so similar.
In Rich's defense, his original mentions of the book (here, a few years ago) referred to the project as an updated edition of APUE. The implication was that he planned to publish it as the second edition WRS would certainly have written had he lived.
It was eventually published not by Addison-Wesley, the publisher of APUE, but by Prentice Hall and not by the name APUE Second Edition but Solaris Systems Programming. Presumably he was unable to get AW, or the estate of WRS, or whoever was the "process group leader", to sign off on the project and had to shop it elsewhere. So I suspect - and note that I have no personal knowledge of any people or organizations involved - that when much of the work on this book was done it was intended to be APUE II.
Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a striking resemblance to their predecessor. I agree he should have have been more explicit about the debt owed to APUE but the charitable interpretation is that this was originally expected to be obvious and then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up for Prentice Hall
Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the best-written technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors shouldn't stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great is that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't the authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well for the authors of Unix code?
We're not dealing with fiction or poetry here. Technical books should be judged on true vs false, acessible vs obscure, complete vs spotty. Not on originality.
Heny Townsend <henry.towns...@not.here> wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: >>>If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying, >>>don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS? >>>I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point >>>out the myriad of differences between the two books.
>> Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities >> that is so striking.
>>>It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin' >>>on someone's parade.
>> No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books >> could be so similar. > In Rich's defense, his original mentions of the book (here, a few years > ago) referred to the project as an updated edition of APUE. The > implication was that he planned to publish it as the second edition WRS > would certainly have written had he lived. > It was eventually published not by Addison-Wesley, the publisher of > APUE, but by Prentice Hall and not by the name APUE Second Edition but > Solaris Systems Programming. Presumably he was unable to get AW, or the
Presumably (but so far I've not been able to get that information).
And in any case, omitting the bibliography entry doesn't tend to confirm that hypothesis. Stevens is credited for inspiration, but none of the content.
> estate of WRS, or whoever was the "process group leader", to sign off on > the project and had to shop it elsewhere. So I suspect - and note that I > have no personal knowledge of any people or organizations involved - > that when much of the work on this book was done it was intended to be > APUE II. > Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar > organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
including copying examples and user exercises?
> striking resemblance to their predecessor. I agree he should have have > been more explicit about the debt owed to APUE but the charitable > interpretation is that this was originally expected to be obvious and > then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up for > Prentice Hall
If it were that simple, I'd have gotten a good answer.
> Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the best-written > technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors shouldn't > stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great is > that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been > afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an > evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't the > authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well for > the authors of Unix code?
I recommend that you examine both books before talking only about techniques.
> We're not dealing with fiction or poetry here. Technical books should be > judged on true vs false, acessible vs obscure, complete vs spotty. Not > on originality. > -- > Henry Townsend
