What is the UNIX philosophy? No, not "everything is a file". I mean the actual philosophy. Rigid modulation? A perfect blend of kernel and userland? Absolutely secure? A combination of all these things?
The state of UNIX today is so sad to me. We have Linux and BSD, the main free *nix's. We have macOS, a powerful, beautiful, but locked-down *nix. QNX, Minix, etc are unique but out-of-reach. Redox is political, and HURD seems like more of a hate-fuck than a love-child.
Within Linux, there is so many different philosophies and programs and dependces and forks that you either have to be a masochistic or a blind sheep to enjoy it.
Alternatives, like Windows and Haiku, are proprietary or in early beta.
Clearly, there's SOMETHING about Unix that makes it better than everything else. Linux may be the best of all the evils, but it's still evil. At its core, is UNIX good, or evil. It is a case of "hating the creator because of the creation"? Or is rotten from the core, like grafting branches onto a dead tree?
Is the problem of fragmentation and shitty programming answerable?
Most importantly, what is UNIX?
UNIX
Other urls found in this thread:
idea.popcount.org
doc.cat-v.org
xahlee.info
invidio.us
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
catb.org
catb.org
twitter.com
It's nothing more than taking ideas of simplicity and slapping a brand name on them. To add insult to injury, it doesn't even produce simple software.
What?
You mean the only blend?
The only way to really resecure a UNIX machine is to wipe it and reinstall from scratch, so no.
I agree it's sad.
It was free and too many people never learned about better systems and eventually inmates ran the asylum. There's nothing better about it in terms of merit.
Yes, but that requires a coherent system, which UNIX will never be. It still uses X for graphics, because it never had its own solution, and so there's no native anything there. It doesn't provide solutions for so many things and never will.
UNIX is a blight on computing.
user, you make a lot statements. You might even be right. However I must reprimanded you for a) not providing specifics (aside from X) and b) not giving specific solutions.
being able to pipe programs to other programs which alows a bunch of small programs and utilities that do one job and that job well to be connected together to do a big job. not to say this is actually how it turned out.
user, do you think this could be realized? What would that require?
stop worrying about backwards compatibility and rewrite a bunch of it. it's mostly the users and new coders trying to make it windows when it's not and never supposed to be.
What did he mean by this?
It does work well until you slap a bunch of non-conforming software into it as replacements for the original software. GNU
Remember, those utilities were designed by a handful of people who worked intimately with each other for years if not decades, so they knew various nuances to their work.
GNU was a haphazard result that tried to emulate what UNIX did, but remember, GNU's Not UNIX. That's why simple scripting in Linux is so broken.
The only UNIX you listed was BSD.
The solution to the unix question is plan 9
u must be the most schizo dumbfuck after terry_the_negro.
u have a prob with linux, unix, mac... maybe us should stick to using the postal service!!! :D:D:D:D:D
why not? Postal service is a great service and they have a pretty nice release model to back it up.
It's simple and clean with only 1 goal in mind, deliver.
Truely the followers of unix prensiples.
Care to give specifics? Or you just gonna keep parroting arguments you've heard?
You mean the original UNIX utilities or GNU?
The recursive naming scheme is merely a haxxor meme. That GNU is not UNIX does not mean it is not UNIX, but that it is not proprietary, as UNIX is. Think TRON restoring power to the users, and that's what Stallman sought to do with GNU.
I got coffee on my monitor from laughing to hard. Clearly, there is an implied definition of what I mean by UNIX (in case your reading comprehension is really that low, it's that UNIX is anything derived from or based upon UNIX) now the question is, what is UNIX? Linux was made to be binary compatible with UNIX. macOS received its license legitimately. Same with QNX afaik.
Care to elaborate, user? What is the "unix question"
What makes you think UNIX is better than everything else? It's the most popular operating system, but that doesn't indicate it's the best.
What makes you think Linux is better than any other UNIX? Any of the BSD's are much better UNIX systems than Linux. MINIX3 is just on the horizon for being usable but it is fundamentally better than any BSD or Linux.
People talk about the UNIX philosophy and define it as how the original UNIX system worked. You could pipe programs to other programs, and it was small enough that it all worked in a consistent way. But that doesn't have anything to do with the way we use UNIX today. We use gigantic monolithic Web Browsers like Firefox and Window Managers like X11, that don't work anything like this idea of what UNIX is supposed to be. The "UNIX philosophy" stopped being real and became a meme when it was made irrelevant by how people actually wanted to use UNIX, instead of when it was a couple of designers in Bell Labs designing a system for it's own sake. In other words, when people wanted to use UNIX for real applications.
People talk about how Windows is impure compared to UNIX. In this way they can look externally towards the reason UNIX isn't following this philosophy, instead of inwards on the components of modern UNIX that I mentioned earlier. The real problem is not some kind of "Windows VS UNIX" mindset. (this is how UNIX users deflect introspection- it can become an ideology or a religion, where good is UNIX and evil is Windows - where "Windows" is everything that is not UNIX.) Really it is that there are real needs people had, that the UNIX idea of pipes, etc, did not scale too, like a GUI. So people created operating system's with GUI's, and now we have modern Windows and UNIX, which are not really very different from each other. They only are if you see UNIX as a religion.
Multics for niggers
Unix was a program gone bad. Born into poverty, its parents,the phone company, couldn't afford more than a roll of teletypepaper a year, so Unix never had decent documentation and itssource files had to go without any comments whatsoever.Year after year, Papa Bell would humiliate itself asking for rateincreases so that it could feed its child. Still, Unix had to go toschool with only two and three letter command names becausethe phone company just couldn't afford any better. At school,the other operating systems with real command names,and even command completion, would taunt poor little Unix fornot having any job or terminal management facilities or forhaving to use its file system for interprocess communication andlocking.Then, bitter and emasculated by its poverty, the phone companybegan to drink. During lost weekends of drunken excess, it wouldbrutally beat poor little Unix about the face and neck. Eventually,Unix ran away from home. Soon it was living on the streets ofBerkeley. There, Unix got involved with a bad crowd. Its lifebecame a degrading journey of drugs and debauchery. To keepitself alive, it sold cheap source licenses for itself to universitieswhich used it for medical experiments. Being wantonly hacked byan endless stream of nameless, faceless undergraduates, bothmen and women, often by more than one at the same time, Unixfell into a hell-hole of depravity.And so it was that poor little Unix began to go insane. It retreatedsteadily into a dreamworld, the only place where it felt safe. Ittook heroin and dreamed of being a real operating system.It took LSD and dreamed of being a raspberry flavored three-toed yak.It liked that better. As Unix became increasingly attracted to LSD, itwould spend weekends reading Hunter Thompson and takingcocktails of acid and speed while writing crazed poetry in which itfound deep meaning but which no one else could understand:
$sed $mf.new -e '1,/^# AUTOMATICALLY/!d' make shlist || ($echo "Searching for .SH files..."; \ $echo *.SH | $tr ' ' '\012' | $egrep -v '\*' >.shlist) if $test -s .deptmp; then for file in `cat .shlist`; do $echo `$expr X$file : 'X\(.*\).SH'`: $file config.sh \; \ /bin/sh $file >> .deptmp done $echo "Updating $mf..." $echo "# If this runs make out of memory, delete /usr/include lines." \ >> $mf.new $sed 's|^\(.*\.o:\) *\(.*/.*\.c\) *$|\1 \2; '"$defrule \2|" .deptmp \ >>$mf.new else make hlist || ($echo "Searching for .h files..."; \ $echo *.h | $tr ' ' '\012' | $egrep -v '\*' >.hlist) $echo "You don't seem to have a proper C preprocessor. Using grep instead." $egrep '^#include ' `cat .clist` `cat .hlist` >.deptmp $echo "Updating $mf..." > $mf.new .hsed > $mf.new > $mf.new > $mf.new > $mf.new for file in `$cat .shlist`; do $echo `$expr X$file : 'X\(.*\).SH'`: $file config.sh \; \ /bin/sh $file >> $mf.new done fi
Eventually, Unix began walking down Telegraph Avenue talkingto itself, saying "Panic: freeing free inode," over and over again.Sometimes it would accost perfect strangers and yell "Bus error(core dumped)!" or "UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY: RUNFSCK MANUALLY!" at them in a high pitched squeal like achihuahua with amphetamine psychosis. Upstanding citizenspretended it was invisible. Mothers with children crossed to theother side of the street.Then one evening Unix watched television, an event which wouldchange its life. There it discovered professional wrestling andknew that it had found its true calling. It began to take huge dosesof corticosteroids to build itself up even bigger than the biggest ofthe programs which had beaten it up as a child. It ate three dozenpancakes and four dozen new features for breakfast each day. Asthe complications of the steroids grew worse, its internal organsgrew to the point where Unix could no longer contain them. Firstthe kernel grew, then the C library, then the number of daemons.Soon one of its window systems was requiring two megabytes ofswap space for each open window. Unix began to bulge in strange,unflattering places. But Unix continued to take the drugs and itsinternal organs continued to grow. They grew out its ears andnostrils. They placed incredible stresses on Unix's brain until itfinally liquefied under pressure.Soon Unix had the mass of Andre the Giant, the body of theElephant Man, and the mind of a forgotten Jack Nicholson character.The worst strain was on Unix's mind. Unable to assimilate all theconflicting patchworks of features it had ingested, its personalitybegan to fragment into millions of distinct, incompatible operatingsystems. People would cautiously say "good morning Unix. Andwho are we today?" and it would reply "Beastie" (BSD), or "Domain",or "I'm System III, but I'll be System V tomorrow." Psychiatristslabored for years to weld together the two major poles of Unix'spersonality, "Beasty Boy", an inner-city youth from Berkeley, and"Belle", a southern transvestite who wanted a to be a woman. Witheach attempt, the two poles would mutate, like psychotic retroviruses,leaving their union a worthless blob of protoplasm requiring constantlife support to remain compatible with its parent personalities.Finally, unbalanced by its own cancerous growth, Unix fell into a vatof toxic radioactive wombat urine, from which it emerged, skin whiteand hair green. It smelled like somebody's dead grandmother.With a horrible grin on its face, it set out to conquer the world.
GNU is hacked together garbage.
The original UNIX utilities were made by a handful of people who knew what they were doing.
Ok. It was fun talking.
At the kernel level, from my understanding they're very similar. In practice, I think only Mac OS would be close to Windows. Nothing like this in the FOSS world unfortunately. I doubt that will change either. Seems like the world is stuck with XWindows and multiple desktops/apis/hundred ways to reinvent the wheel.
Programming X11 and POSIX isn't that different from the Win32 API. Either way X11 and all of the other important programs are totally divorced from this idea of the "UNIX philosophy". It basically doesn't exist anymore outside of the command line, which only has the remnants of the original interface.
Oh, I'm just saying that Aqua and Windows GUI aren't running in usermode. They're integral to the OS (Windows more than Aqua, I guess). Unlike XWindows.
GNU's Not UNIX
based
...
In what way? What makes them better? At the kernel level or in userland?
In what way, user?
He's not wrong though.
Just the obvious mostly. They're both monolithic and both evolved along the same timeline of OS research (UNIX/VMS). In other ways, they're functionally similar (if not exacting) on process/task/memory management. Both very portable and support the same array of hardware (Windows isn't limitless SMP wise).
UNIX, as conceived by the original team at Bell Labs is dead. The last release was 10th Reserach Unix from 1989 and it was closely related to 4.1BSD that already implemented ideas outside the simple concept of Unix like symbolic links and sockets.
Basically, everything went sour when networks where introduced[1]. Before that, computers were just giant machines with terminals connected with serial lines. The *nix we have today is a Frankstein's Monster Operating system, designed without network and graphics in mind and later implemented as a second thought.
[1]idea.popcount.org
It's a shit answer while being technically correct. This means it's meaningless.
I never said he is. However, for mine and other anons education, I'd like for him to give some specifics. A truth statement is only as useful as the understanding behind it.
Not really specific at all, just more buzz words, but oh well.
Interesting. I always thought it was the GUI that did more harm, but I see where you're coming from. Do you think this was the advent of networking itself, or the fact that because of networking you had more people giving opinions and code that turned it to shit? Also, do you think Plan 9 is a better modern OS? Thanks for the source, too.
Unix was desined to be an OS for time sharing machine with text terminals. Having network is not the problem, same for raster terminals. Unix did have a well implemented solution to raster graphics, The Blit, but X11 was already in wide use.
By the late 80's the world of computing was changing. Instead of huge machines with connected to terminals through serial lines, there were single user working stations connected through Ethernet. The Unix model became inadequate, because each machine was running a time sharing OS designed to be a central piece to terminals. Managing stuff like hosts and route still is a nightmare today for *nix networks, because they can't be centralized. So many places (my workplace included) just provides a ssh to your working environment and the terminal you do as you want, some go with Windows, others Linux and the faggots with Mac OS X.
The late 80's was the time the team behind Unix began developing Plan 9. With network in mind, sharing resources is a breeze, with a single command you can share anything you want, although not recommended in public networks, for that you need Factotum, but is easy to configure, now try sharing anything in *nix. Maybe you go for sshfs, or NFS, maybe FTP, every single one with annoying quirks, it doesn't feel like it is part of Unix. That doesn't happen in Plan 9.
Well, the problem today is that Plan 9 lacks many software now commonplace, like web-browser (the WWW is broken, but everyone use it so you have little choice) and video playback. If you are a programmer, try Plan 9's C. There is also Inferno, but I'll leave this to you, the post is big enough.
Finally, X11. X11 was designed on MIT, the original purpose was to be network transparent and it managed to do that for some time, but just like Unix itself, it was pushed way beyond its purpose. Today X11 is NOT network transparent due to extensions like shared memory, that can't be network transparent.
I can go on and on, read the history of Unix and X11, its interesting.
UNIX is self-defeating. It has a solid idea of small programs that each do one thing and combine to do more complex things. However, the implementations almost always have a massive several-million line binary running the whole show. It's because of this that I wish things such as Minix or HURD became more successful. HURD in particular seemed as though it would become mainstream had Linux not come along, if Linus Torvalds in 1993 is anything to go by
I guess with Google working on Fuchsia, this problem will be solved. To bad it'll be botnet as fuck. Oh and there's also Genode.
Hey user thanks for taking the time to write this out. I _want_ to run plan9, but I don't have much of a home network and im not a very good programmer, so I have such little practical motivation.
Did Rob Pike have his ear pierced?
if u want unix use a BSD variant, linux doesnt give a fuck about unix, it's all broken poetteringware stitched together, its very much like windows these days
What a truly stupid idea. And the only thing Unix niggers could ever win on was fucking toy text parsing programs because that's all their junk ass 'small programs' can even do.
Linux
Is
Not
Unix
Xer idk lmao get coc'd
Care to elaborate on what you mean?
Why doesn't it work well? The only example you gave was that it worked well for some stuff.
You are thinking of GNU
GNU is not Unix
The concept of small parts working together to archive a bigger result isn't exclusive to Unix. Think about an assembly line, one person alone can't build a car by himself, but he can weld a new part on the bodywork so far. No one knows how to make a pencil[1]
Small parts working together is the basis of languages like FORTH or Lisp that you build larger functions with smaller ones and even the shell pipes behave a lot like a functional language[2].
So stop hating on this concept because you don't like Unix, I bet you're the same guy claiming that people use shell pipes because they feel smart by doing so.
[1]doc.cat-v.org
[2]xahlee.info
you disagree with modern computing my good friend. Every single program is made out of smaller programs if it does anything useful.
The Unix philosophy just means that "a program should do a one thing and do it well" and that the programs should be made to be interoperable. According to the Unix philosophy, you should always make programs output to be easily used as input in another program. You should also test your programs often and automate as much of the programming work as possible.
Admit it, Terry was right (kind of). The "today's" operating systems are all legacy software. Your Linux, MacOS and Windows are all emulating 70s terminals (actually Windows is the most "modern" of the bunch in this respect but it's still awful) invidio.us
BONUS: TempleOS code walkthrough: youtube.com
For example, NetBSD is much closer to original Unix/BSD than Linux.
This is an example of what I meant when I wrote the UNIX philosophy is nothing more than taking ideas of simplicity and slapping a brand name on them and, to add insult to injury, it doesn't even produce simple software.
Subprogram boundaries are good and obviously work, but the boundaries UNIX uses are only good for extremely trivial compositions.
Yeah turns out piping around unstructured data is shit. It is webdev shit tier.
...
Wasn't one of the main reasons for the Unix philosophy, or way of building tools, was to save system resources because the machines weren't particularly powerful?
They implemented similar logic into the same program, do one thing and do it well, and then used the shell, specifically piping and scripting, to glue a bunch of these small programs into a new meta-program for some specific purpose. This screams trying to stop programmers from writing the same logic in different programs, hence saving resources and being minimal.
The problem is that we no longer have those same kind of resource constraints yet still a lot of software is written in that way. A lot of people write shell scripts thinking that what they just created was minimal, and it may have been for the environment(and/or time period) that the Unix philosophy was created for, but it truly isn't minimal nowadays. Most people aren't cognizant of the dependencies needed for that shell script to run: you need a shell bundled with an interpretter(BASH is at least 50K LoC) and the external programs you're piping to(sed, awk, grep, etc. all with lots of functionality you're not using). Yet people still shout and say, "this program is only 50 lines of shell script!" and behave as if the dependencies aren't there. For many of these programs, it would be less total LoC, less dependencies, less disk space, and more performant to just write them as discrete programs rather than shell scripts.
It's not that I dislike the Unix philosophy, it just feels like its implementation should change for the current computing environment.
like what
This, right here, is Unix. It's imperfect and often far from intuitive (much like chopsticks, which I'm sure you weebs use regularly), it's a conglomeration of patched up pieces and it creaks like an old house. However, it was designed with simplicity and modularity in mind (this doesn't necessarily mean it is simple or modular though), and it's beautiful in it's own right. Software is always gonna suck, so it's all about sucking less and I think that's where unix shines.
Eric S. Raymond expands on what this philosophy is in "The Art of Unix Programming". Read the relevant chapters if you're interested enough.
>en.wikipedia.org
>catb.org
I also liked particularly enjoyed the section "Is Emacs an Argument Against the Unix Tradition?"
doesn't git kind of solve this file sharing stuff? or do you mean on a larger scale (like, say, sharing multi-GB multimedia libraries)?
git feels like unix to me
lol it's opposite land over here
ok now you are trolling
What an understatement.
That or killing yourself, right.
Why? Chances are any justification for that could be used to justify saying that Windows is (still) good. The fact that any of this shit is still around is a symptom of stagnation (and the innovation that happened in the 80s failed for the most part, because being Jewish and having money trumps quality every time). No one invents shit nowadays except for Terry, they just make more of the same. Occasionally a different OS that is just based on something old like everything else. If people refuse to reinvent the wheel, then it's no surprise that they have been using the same wheel for almost 50 years.
A debugger that dumps core and overwrites the original core file it was trying to debug is the definition of "well" for UNIX weenies. There's a famous paper called "An Empirical Study of the Reliability of UNIX Utilities" which came out of the UNIX community itself.
The UNIX "tool" philosophy was a kludge so they could get "tools" originally not designed to work together to work together, like those programs that work by moving your mouse pointer and faking keypresses. The proper solution in both cases is to use a binary interface.
That's what libraries do. Libraries were around for decades before UNIX and they do a much better job.
>catb.org
Bright people can tell the difference between good software and a pile of shit. UNIX weenies don't mind "accidental" complexity like C and JavaScript brain damage or not being able to use compound literals with C macros because they didn't think about the interaction between commas and the preprocessor, but they complain about anything that's actually useful to the programmer even though the lack of brain damage makes it simpler than UNIX languages that do less.
>catb.org
Let me guess, this was written before Go came out and Eric S. Raymond completely changed his opinion on threads after Go made them "simple and elegant."
How did I know that?
The statement “fixing bugs would break existing code” is a powerfulexcuse for Unix programmers who don’t want to fix bugs. But there mightbe a hidden agenda as well. More than breaking existing code, fixing bugswould require changing the Unix interface that zealots consider so simpleand easy-to-understand. That this interface doesn’t work is irrelevant. Butinstead of buckling down and coming up with something better, or just fix-ing the existing bugs, Unix programmers chant the mantra that the Unixinterface is Simple and Beautiful. Simple and Beautiful. Simple and Beau-tiful! (It’s got a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?)Unfortunately, programming around bugs is particularly heinous since itmakes the buggy behavior part of the operating system specification. Thelonger you wait to fix a bug, the harder it becomes, because countless pro-grams that have the workaround now depend on the buggy behavior andwill break if it is fixed. As a result, changing the operating system interfacehas an even higher cost since an unknown number of utility programs willneed to be modified to handle the new, albeit correct, interface behavior.(This, in part, explains why programs like ls have so many differentoptions to accomplish more-or-less the same thing, each with its own slightvariation.)
I don't think he was able to enjoy the wasabi my friend, he got way to caught up in this ideal of a beautiful holistic system, and that's why i think it's important to point out that it will never be good so we should just appreciate what we have.
like what, for example?
I didn't know unix programmers have a reputation for disliking threads. And what's wrong with Eric changing his mind?
And what are all these bugs I keep hearing about? Not even trolling, the coded post flat out says their embedded in the OS interface. Is it really a bug that ls has so many options? I wouldn't really consider that a bug, but I haven't looked at the code. It just sounds like a typical (and beneficial) consequence of keeping programs simple. But again I have no idea.
gnome 3, dbus, freedesktop cancer, systemd botnet, etc.
If you want to know what a good modern Unix system looks like, take a look at Solaris and derivatives like OpenIndiana and Tribblix. The kernel source is crazy clean and everything works so smoothly. There's all sorts of great features like DTrace and ZFS.
But like any other OS these days, it's missing the main feature that makes a desktop OS worth using, which is the GUI. Now obviously you could use Gnome or MATE or any of the various desktops or window managers that work on other *nix systems but they all suck fat logs of shit. The only graphical interfaces that were done well enough that I enjoyed using them were Classic MacOS, QNX, and IRIX. Every other GUI I've seen has been disgusting garbage that's non-functional and inconsistent, or just ugly in ways I can't even begin to explain to plebs with shit taste.
Dear sir, may i intrest you in gnustep?
based
cringe
GNUstep is real excellent. However, it's a shadow of what NeXTstep was. The main problem I see is that there's no good unified design language like in macOS. Even tho I'm not the biggest aqua fan in the world, the fact that all programs have a unified interface makes me wet.
This is it in a nutshell.
Plan 9 is supposed to be the next Unix, they basically redid everything from scratch after learning their lessons. In fact it's still a kind of Unix in a way, as Plan 9 literally evolved from Research Unix 10. You can see the foundations of it if you poke around the Unix source code archives at minnie.tuhs.org plus there's a lot of neat shit there too including the full source for an early Matlab which is still usable on a modern Linux or BSD machine.
Install 9front and get comfy with it, it's kind of nice. That's what Unix was supposed to be as the project was wrapping up at Bell Labs.
GNUstep is 100% Nextstep and Openstep compatible, library wise. It's a complete implementation of the Openstep spec with many additions from OS X. You even have Display Postscript with the proper setup. If you still have the source code for any Nextstep or Openstep programs, assuming they are written in device-agnostic Objective C (ie no assembly calls or dedicated weird old DSP functions) it will compile and run just fine on GNUstep.
Windowmaker implements the look and feel of Nextstep or Openstep perfectly, you can even do neat things like register services. It's a totally usable, 100% faithful clone. Sadly there aren't many programs which are developed for GNUstep but it is complete and usable and with some care it's still possible to develop a program on GNUstep which will compile and run just fine on OS X today.
Thanks user I will look more into it. I ran it in the past but I'll be honest I didn't read very much into it.
Is there any projects to implement GNUstep in the Darwin Kernel?
cringe
I've been thinking about installing a recreational OS, and I've been torn between TempleOS, Linux From Scratch and Plan9 (..inferno?). I'm leaning towards Plan9 just because the suckless crowd seems so obsessed with it.
There was a Darwin / GNUstep OS distro a long time ago, maybe 10 years or more. The underlying OS doesn't really matter though, GNUstep / Openstep is designed across OS's and I don't think there are any real life Darwin users so it died.
It's a C64 but with C and for a generic modern PC. It's neat but it's a toy. If you bother with it, make sure to get one of the older versions from before the glowniggers mucked with it and removed AfterEgypt, the crowning jewel of Terry's TempleOS.
It's useful to know how to bring up Linux on some hardware. If you're going to bother, I'd try to target something real new which doesn't have Linux yet, or something old which hasn't been bothered with in 20 years. It's not really recreational, it doesn't help you to relax nor is it "fun" for most people even with autism accounted for.
9front is the way to go and it's at least theoretically supported even on old ass 68K series hardware, PowerPC, and like 15 architectures. Many probably haven't been brought up in ages but I'm sure you'd find plenty of community support if you tried.
ok
No.
HolyC is not C.
C++ is not C.
There are properties shared in C with those languages, but they are all unique.
Plan 9 C is also unique tbh.
Blame pthreads.
That's the thing with the Multicuck: the only thing he hates more than a Unixfag is a Unixfag who changes his mind or adopts features from other OSes despite him also pushing Unix to adopt his favourite features from his favourite operating systems, even if they don't fit. Notice how he froths at the mouth whenever Plan 9 is mentioned but never actually posts any criticisms of it.
The paper he cited is from the late 80s and his usenet quote is probably from that era too.
The common argument is that they were done badly, for a number or reasons. X is a prime example of something most people would agree is a shitheap.
You would be hard pressed to find many useful OS and compiler related papers post 95, believe me I've been looking.
The problems that X solved aren't really problems any more. The idea was to run your programs on some powerful Unix machine and use a cheap X terminal to view and interact with them. Still it's useful for the right application, and it will never go away completely.
I don't trust Wayland though.
How are chopsticks "far from intuitive"?
Any legitimate reasons?
Any legitimate reasons?
they come with instructions on every package for a reason, forks do not
sounds like you'd recommend 9front out of those then? I was kinda leaning that way anyway, I'd like to see what all the hipster hype is about
I can tell you haven't seen people who have never been trained with a fork.
The only reason people don't trust Wayland is because it's being "pushed" the same way SystemD was.
This is enough tbqhf.
Wayland was started by the people who maintain X.org and is still developed by those same people. The reason why it started because the X.org experts could see how all the Unix world were using the X11 system and how the X11 system was totally unsuitable for how it was used in practice. Wayland was born to promote a way to display graphics without the legacy architectural baggage that was not needed for modern display systems.
Sadly it's botnet though...
Sauce?
Forgive me, I'm a huge newfag to all this. The long and short of it is that, despite the actual "philosophy", the UNIX system was only ever meant for command-line and networking use, nothing else?
That's wrong, see Plan 9.
The reason I don't like Wayland is that there's no xlib/xcb to do applications without depending on bloated toolkits.
So it was going to be the next UNIX iteration that fixed many of the problems that existed at the time, but no one ever actually used it. And, instead, continued to develop for the older, flawed, UNIX system and proceeded to build upon that, which brings us back to:
...
It was meant for teletypers which you can think of as networked typewriters.
really? where?
Imagine being this ignorant. Install 9front faggot.
Window managers like i3 are tolerable. I can't deal with modern ui's for work anymore. I only have kde installed on my entertainment and fap box.
It can be summarized as: "All software is bad. Everything is a lie."