Talk:In the Beginning... Was the Command Line

message: 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)
thread_title: History or metaphor

message: 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)
thread_title: Where is a copy available?

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's not even really an error unless you interpret it that way. — Omegatron 21:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual errors?

message: Shouldn't there be a space after the ellipsis? Cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipsis. --Malyctenar 10:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Punctuation of the title...? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Neal-Stephenson-in-the-beginning.jpg

message: Does this really need to be linked in the article? It reads much more like an op-ed piece than any sort of actual criticism or even discussion of Stephenson's essay. 144.135.138.40 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garrett Birkel's rebuttal 

message: The opening line to this section reads:
 "The book is commonly quoted as:"
This would imply that the mis-quoted text that follows has appeared in numerous places; however, the section only references one instance of the mis-quote as it appears on the Instapundit blog. I'm not one to question the notability of the Instapundit blog (I've never heard of it before, but I'm happy to accept that I may be in a minority), but this singular occurrence of a quotation error doesn't feel like an "issue", and the blog itself contains an acknowledgement and correction further down.
Unless there is evidence that the book is routinely mis-quoted elsewhere, I'm not sure that the inclusion of this section is helpful to people wanting to know more about Neal Stephenson's essay.
I (will) have added some tags to this effect, but if no additional information can be provided I propose removing the section. -- G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.226.67 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quotation issue" really an issue? 

message: There is much I dislike about this entire article, but I'm going to eat the elephant one bite at a time. I replaced the paragraph about bug tracking. I used google.com/search?q=neal+stephenson+debian+bug+6518 – tbc (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Bug Tracking 

message: A phrase like “similar to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” is marked “[Citation needed]”. The title is a link to the WP article about that work. How can there be any more citation needed than that? --CRConrad (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation NOT needed?