From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The UNIX-HATERS Handbook article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Books Portal 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Removal of 'External links'

It's not clear to me why this edit was made:

19:49, 27 November 2005 86.133.242.215 (→External links)

I removed one of the external links a day or so prior to that because it returned 404. The remaining external link is still valid, and, indeed, is a download page for the Handbook itself. As well, the stub tag was removed, and this article probably still qualifies as a stub, doesn't it? Am I missing something here? PaulHoadley 10:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation, then, I've reverted that edit and restored the single functioning external link. I notice this has happened before, and I assume it's vandalism. PaulHoadley 02:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move proposal

I believe (but could very well be mistaken) that the correct title of the book is 'The UNIX-HATERS Handbook', as opposed to 'The UNIX-Haters Handbook'. This seems to be inline with the 'UNIX-HATERS' mailing list that the majority of the messages within the book are taken from. If this is true (as it seems to be) Then we should move the page from 'The UNIX-Haters Handbook' to 'The UNIX-HATERS Handbook'. Thoughts? --Ryanfantastic 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached a consensus! Thanks Marudubshinki for moving the page. --Ryanfantastic 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw shucks. All I did was read the linked PDF. --maru (talk) contribs 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research/Opinions

Added the tag because statements such as "both the intellectual content and the communicational tenor of the book are altogether so fraught with immaturity, envy, and utter nonsense" are clearly simply uncited opinions of the author unfit for an encyclopedia.Mahewa 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They've been removed. I'd just have nuked them if I were you, stuff like that isn't worth wasting time debating. Chris Cunningham 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even when it's true, like this :p --bonzi (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)