[ubuntu-in] A interesting read

[Parthan]

Roshan wrote:
> I often come across these comments. People often term
> these as "absolute" truth, rather than "relative". If
> you play cricket, and are a right hand batsman, you'll
> bat the same way. If you choose to bat the other way
> (left hand batsman) you'll probably feel to do it
> difficult, initially. You weren't taught to play as a
> right hand batsman, but you learnt it from observing 
> and the same would be the case with left hand batsman.
> The point is how you learn. Your brain has vizualized
> and observed the trend of right hand batting, and not
> left hand batting. If you observe more left hand
> batsman, you'll probably know how to bat as a left
> hand batsman. 

I would like to differ in this analogy. When we all started playing 
cricket, we had an equal opportunity of being a Left-handed or 
Right-handed batsmen/bowler. In fact, me and a most of my friends were 
playing both handed for a few years before we settled with either one. 
We are never taught to play cricket in one of the style, we had to try 
out both and find out which was more suitable and comfortable for us. I 
usually defended well when playing left-handed but often got out when 
playing right-handed. There is a known difference in comfort and style 
while playing either left-handed or right-handed depending on whether 
the player is naturally left-handed or right-handed.

And, another interesting fact is the comfort level at the other end, 
i.e. the bowler who is bowling to a left-handed or right handed batsmen. 
A bowler who has been bowling a few overs to a right-handed or 
left-handed bowler will have some problem when suddenly bowling to the 
other.

It is not actually seeing and observing that you learn cricket, its by 
being in the crease, holding the bat and facing the ball that you learn 
to play. If you have been only *seeing* Tendulkar play for 3 years, you 
can not play like him. You can not imitate a player just by seeing him 
for some time. Rather you have to go there and try it out and often you 
wont be able to do it. But, you can try to play similar shots as per the 
books.

Coming to the Original Part of the discussion, tools exist to assist 
some one in doing a job, be it GUI tools or CLI tools. Mostly the GUI 
tools are just wrappers around the CLI tools. The need for GUI tools 
over CLI tools comes depending on your own comfort level or skill level 
of using a GNU/Linux system. IMHO, GUI tools are demanded by people who 
are not exposed to handling CLI tools, mostly new users of Linux and 
that too mostly Desktop users. But, considering the case of Admins and 
Developers, their work can be done faster and in efficient way through 
the CLI than GUI. (This is a personal opinion only!). I think a few 
admins who are also members of this mailing list will agree to this. I 
personally feel coding using Vim or Emacs to be faster, efficient and 
comfortable than using a GUI tool like Eric for my work. But, my 
colleagues who have been used to using Visual Studio are using Eric, as 
they are new to GNU/Linux and haven't yet understood the power of CLI.
Another personal experience is, those who once started with GUI tools 
have matured and come down to doing things in CLI or using small scripts.

-- 
With Regards

Parthan (TechnoFreak)

A Proud GNU/Linux User and Ubuntero

[Web]   https://parth.technofreak.googlepages.com
[Blog]  http://technofreakatchennai.wordpress.com
[Album] http://flickr.com/photos/techno_freak/