Talk:In the Beginning... was the Command Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
To me this book seemed more than just a history of operating systems. It seemed like a book on epistemology, with operating systems used as metaphors for how humans interface with underlying reality. Did anyone else get that impression? Tim Shell 21:42, 7 Aug 2004
Yes. This book is a lot of things. The article, on the other hand, makes it appear as as yet another Microsoft-versus-free-software essay. Which is misleading, IMHO. Jgrahn 22:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there another copy of the annotated and updated version of this book out there? all the links I find point to an old copy which is no longer online--Gsham 03:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Factual errors?
In the factual errors section, this looks rather like original research, or a book review. Does the c/cpp mistake really make a difference to the historical significance of this essay? Ojw 21:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's not even really an error unless you interpret it that way. — Omegatron 21:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The remaining Factual Errors entry (Apple development environment) is pretty pointless, too ... it's not as if it invalidates any major part of the essay, is it? Compare with the information that the author now prefers OS/X - that is relevant. Jgrahn 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The Factual Errors is incorrect. The MPW didn't create a CLI for the OS, it simply made it available. This entry should be removed. --Archetypical 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Punctuation of the title...?
Shouldn't there be a space after the ellipsis? Cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipsis. --Malyctenar 10:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that, since it's the title of the book, we should go with Stephenson's usage. But I can see how it should conform to the MoS as well. I'm undecided. Wyatt Riot 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem: what is his usage? The book cover (it seems to be the only edition in existence, right?) has a linebreak after the ellipsis. http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html , which is probably the most official you can get, has no ellipsis in the title (but in the navigation the title is shortened to "In the Beginning..."). The zipped TXT file you can download there has the title without ellipsis as well. So until we find a clear evidence that the ellipsis is more correct than a mere space, I'm all in favour of at least punctuating it properly. --Malyctenar 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just pulled out my copy of the actual book, and it's problematic. The front and back covers and copyright page (all presumeably the work of his publisher and typesetters) either include a space before and after, do not include a space before and after, or do not include the ellipsis at all, seemingly interchangeably. Within the book itself (where I'm assuming Stephenson was largely responsible for spacing and such), he adds a space before and after, as well as spaces between the periods. However, I couldn't find any instance of the title within the work itself. So you're right, there's no definite right or wrong way, so I'd agree that it should conform to Wikipedia standards. Wyatt Riot 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Neal-Stephenson-in-the-beginning.jpg
Image:Neal-Stephenson-in-the-beginning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
