Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.
I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes.
Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop. Wow! C'est vrai? And when I went to shut it down? "Please do not power down your computer. Windows is installing (3 of 10...) updates..." WTH?
Is it just me, or is the "new" slashdot almost indecipherable. Normally I write to the source for bugs, or complaints, but this make-over, over the last six months or so disappoints on almost all levels. I work with tech, so I'm pretty good at figuring out some of the weirdest and most complex interfaces, but I've not figured rhyme and or reason with the new slashdot.
I have to second FroMan's feedback. Shell scripting makes almost anything easy (and usually it can be elegant too). But some of the string wrangling does get trickier, but if you learn to deep corners either sed or awk, you get the power of string stuff too.
A friend and I always faced off, script duels if you will. He writes something in perl, I match him stride for stride. Ultimately we end up turning the challenge into converting our "task" into one line of perl or shell and almost always we succeed.
In depth and breadth perl is always going to win, but there's a tax to pay for it's esoteric side. If you know shell and the Unix suite of commands as deeply as someone knows perl, shell is very competitive in effectiveness (after all, it really was Wall's original intent, to fill in the "shortcomings" of shell by incorporating the suite of Unix functionality directly into the shell).
Yes, perl sucks, but it does it in so many different and elegant ways! I think perl is able to suck in more ways than any language I've coded (and I've coded many -- also wrote FORTRAN (and COBOL, AND PL/I) on punch cards long ago).
(for the record, I've written thousands of line of perl also, and I find it to be a fascinating language, and very useful, but it is one of the most abused languages out there, mostly because it's easy to abuse. I always cringe when asked to work on someone else's perl. More likely than not it's someone's self-aggrandized idea of "cool" power programming. Usually that means it's just crap.)
O'Reilly released the latest new version of their vi book, (now "Learning the vi and Vim Editors") last summer with seven new chapters devoted to vim!
What hath Bob wrought?