# UNIX Hater: I am Calling You Out

Angel Turner

GET IN HERE UNIX HATER

No one cares what you think about UNIX or C. You might think it fools anyone to larp around quoting yourself with based, but it doesn't. You've not proven any knowledge or proficiency beyond quoting insufferable usenet posts made by academics who were butthurt because they made poor choices with their careers. You aren't posting any facts to support your opinion, so your opinion is shitposting and is against the rules.

No spamming, sagebombing, shitposting, unwarranted self-identification (ie. signatures, avatars, tripcodes), or making posts advertising or requesting any kind of currency (bitcoin, altcoin, USD, etc), referrals, boards, products, and/or services. Shitposting is defined as a post or thread that doesn't have any meaningful content, indecipherable text (ie. "lol u tk him 2da bar|?") or otherwise contributes nothing toward discussion (ie. posting just to announce sage). It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."

If you want to contribute to this board, then you need to have evidence to back up your claims.

You've already been called out about making your own OS. This was your response I don't have enough time to dedicate to doing so.

You are a shitposter. If you want to shitpost, do it in your own shitty thread.

Attached: mac.jpg (54.21 KB, 400x400)

Connor Jackson

Kayden Torres

No one cares
wrong. I care.
saged and reported btw

Gavin Foster

He's a serial shitposter here on Zig Forums and the rest of 8ch.
I just ignore him, as he loves replies and hates to be ignored (so much so that he samefags replying to himself).
He's retarded and narcissistic.

Parker Phillips

Linux+gnu is the way forward

Today you join the Ring Of Knowledge.
Ascend with us.
Yes, you!

DC0RDC0DE: BKJC8ss

Attached: thesun.gif (28.43 KB, 222x533)

Anthony Martinez

Daily reminder that it took lispfags (including our Unix Hater) FOUR months just to make a very basic GUI text editor.

Also, modern Multics clone never ever

Attached: kizuna-ai-omoomomo-506bdd376ac50e9b9423a57e485c1768.png (2.81 MB, 1280x3161)

Nicholas Gray

Cfags still have to deliver a sane OS after 50 years.

Ryder Flores

Cfags still have to deliver a sane OS after 50 years.

At least it exists, which is infinitely more than nothing.

Juan Ortiz

They've still produced shittons of working operating systems within those 50 years, including loads of hobby projects. Within that same time period Lispfags produced a single workstation which flopped due to gross mismanagement despite some interesting ideas and several barebones, barely functional hobby OSes (around 10, definitely under 20).

Camden Hernandez

Maybe this is because some ideas are only good on paper? In the ideal world we wouldn't need to worry about being spied on online, didn't need to fill in CAPTCHAs and such because no one would try to exploit unprotected web forms and spam their stuff everywhere. Child pornography wouldn't be a thing because it's morally wrong so no one would produce it. Law enforcement wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be any crime.

Ideal scenarios however often doesn't intersect much with reality, hence why we call them ideal. It's nice to dream about how things could be, but in the end, they are destined to remain as dreams.

Aiden Lee

now kiss

Carter Powell

Well, where is your GUI text editor, cniles? Oh that's right. You're too busy LARPing.

Jason Jackson

Child pornography wouldn't be a thing because it's morally wrong so no one would produce it.
What if the child consents, tho?

Parker Morris

kill yourself

Ryan Lewis

Why don't you answer his question, tho?

Brayden Morgan

Not the Lisper but…

He never really derailed them. If it's a thread about Plan 9, he shits on Plan 9 for being UNIX, if it's a thread about another language that copies C, then he shits on it for being like C. It's all consistently on topic.

According to both your threads, gay poster, and Lisper's words, without specialized hardware LISP won't produce the promised results, therefore you're just asking for impossible to begin with. On top of that, all your threads got derailed into incomprehensible mess where you and other people were arguing about rules of what's allowed and now allowed when writing an editor. Asking for a binary when pretty much no modern LISP dialect compiles into binary (not bytecode), shifting the goalposts when someone was using standard libraries. And I still don't get why Emacs doesn't count as a LISP editor when ~60% of its source code is Emacs Lisp but whatever, I'll assume you wanted an entirely new editor. Here's a challenge for you though: go write a text editor in Python (or some other interpreted shit) without using its standard library while producing a portable binary.

It's better to produce nothing rather than producing shit that will poison our civilization for ages to come, if you wanna use that logic.

Shit comparison: there's a difference between a theory and a hypothesis. You can prove that something is good on paper without relying on subjective metrics. Besides, people claim that LISP is good because it existed.

At least the LISP fag brings something new to the table—though the quotes are getting dull—unlike most of people here who continuing to hold onto the technology from 50 years ago because "pipes are magic".

Dominic Watson

guy doesn't agree with the over-adoption of eunuchs
HE is the problem
yeah, sorry dude you're retarded and gay

Caleb Wilson

Having sex with a child is good if the child consents it. And incests are always justice.

Kayden Gonzalez

It's all consistently on topic.
Not really. He recently popped into the Ada thread with a post where only a single line mentioned Ada and everything else was an off-topic rant about how much he hated C and Unix.

Brayden Peterson

based

Isaiah Torres

Deep down everyone knows the Multics nigger is 100% right.
They are simply too afraid to admit the OS and programming language they have wasted so many years whoreshipping for no rational reason are shit.

Colton Cook

this
if you are 100% satisfied with whichever software you are using, regardless of unix-based or whatever, then you're a fucking delusional retard.
everything can always be improved.

Evan Fisher

if lisp is so great how come no editor is 100% lisp
hah I'll write an editor in a fucking hour you pleb
eh hey lisp fags is there even a GUI library for Lisp?
hah lol GUI libraries are trivial
no but seriously how will you write a gui editor without any gui libraries
... months later
no stop moving the goal posts you basically want us to write a Lisp OS. OMG how come emacs doesn't count. lol oh yeah somehow this project from 1987 doesn't meet the requirements because you can't find the code for it lol yeah haha fuck you this is a troll thread. holy shit sage this thread is harassment MODS MODS MODS. wow you ask for an editor then loads of people search and post links to random editors and then you don't apologise look here's a blog post tutorial on racket. Yasss answer him right Lispers.

I'm glad the Lispies have fully embraced arguing that it's better to do nothing successfully, a truly unix credo, rather than fail at doing something.

Noah Brooks

The LISPfags have provided a text editor though. Now the only question is if the Cniles on here can also write one?

Benjamin Cox

No. His post in the Ada thread was off-topic. He doesn't define what he thinks about Ada are merits for switching. He only used that thread as a means to attack anyone who uses C and then to post his opinion. A shitpost is still a shitpost.

That's plainly a cop out. What consumer has access to NVIDIA firmware? They won't notice any difference. They don't develop with it or for it. The only thing that changes for anyone are the developers at NVIDIA who now have to learn Ada in order to keep their jobs.

Henry Flores

Nobody's saying UNIX/POSIX doesn't have braindamage, but Lisp good goyim in their ivory tower are even worse.

Jaxson Cox

Nobody's saying UNIX/POSIX doesn't have braindamage
This isn't really true at all considering the existence of insane groups like cat-v, which bow down to everything that came out of Bell Labs.
Now, that's an extreme example, sure, but many such people do exist, to a varying degree.

Juan Ward

The Cnile LARPer is triggered

Jason Roberts

tl;dr faggot.
The based UNIX hater is based. Your kvetching achieves nothing.

Nathan Cook

Many Unixes are open source so they are very good!

Xavier Reyes

Sure. Thanks for the bump.

Literally only illumos is an open source "real" UNIX

Michael Jenkins

"Real Unix" is not very important. What's more important is whether it is open source.

Parker Rivera

A majority of the complaints found in his blockquotes seem to have to do with specific quirks that existed on the old UNIX systems used at the time of writing, and more than likely do not apply to modern implementations.
However, some of these quotes don't make sense even within the context of the book's publication date of 1994.
The lesson I just learned is: When developing with Make on 2 different machines, make sure their clocks do not differ by more than one minute.
The Network Time Protocol, otherwise known as NTP, has existed in some form since at least 1985: 9 years before the book. In fact, NTPv3 was out 2 years before publication, so it had already had multiple revisions.
The big ones are grep(1) and sort(1). Their "silent truncation" have introduced the most heinous of subtle bugs in shell script database programs.
SQL has existed since 1974: 20 years before the book, and the first commercially available RDBMS, Oracle, was released in 1979. Judging from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems there have been 25+, maybe even 30+ relational database programs that existed prior to the publishing of the Unix Haters Handbook.
Raise your hand if you remember when file systems had version numbers.
you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?
To be a bit more serious though, yes it is true that Unix and Unix-like operating systems don't have separate version numbers for the filesystems, preferring to tie them to kernel versions. Why is this a problem again? Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it? This isn't even a monolithic vs. microkernel argument, as even the microkernel OSes don't seem to bother putting version numbers for filesystems. And why should they?

Hudson Mitchell

you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?
To be a bit more serious though, yes it is true that Unix and Unix-like operating systems don't have separate version numbers for the filesystems, preferring to tie them to kernel versions. Why is this a problem again? Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it? This isn't even a monolithic vs. microkernel argument, as even the microkernel OSes don't seem to bother putting version numbers for filesystems. And why should they?
I'm not the UNIX Hater, though I do also hate UNIX. I've seen this precise reply to this before.

UNIX file systems lack version numbers (versioning), which means that when you modify a file you don't have access to the previous version, along with all prior versions. That is, the UNIX file system makes no attempt to version any files whatsoever. This is something that operating systems, such as VMS, did decades ago, on much weaker hardware, on much smaller disks, yet you'll usually see efficiency or size as an argument against this.

So, what is meant by that is when I modify a file and, say, make a mistake, I can go and undo the mistake if I have a versioning file system, but under UNIX you don't have this and likely never will. Personally, I'm disgusted that the closest thing UNIX has to file versioning is an ugly, manual, explicit version of it called git, along with the other RCSes; this should be done for me.

Now you know. A related complaint is rm is forever, so don't make a mistake, because you may not be able to get your files back. Even Windows has a recycle bin that's integrated with the operating system. I tried using Gnome's garbage bin, but something broke and it doesn't work and it's not as if the OS has any concept of it anyway, so only Gnome software would use it even if it did work.

Easton Phillips

You can do and say whatever you want in this thread
and I'll call out the problems and UNIX fanboys in other threads too
It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."
I told you ZMACS existed the day you made the thread. Then you moved the goal posts since you personally couldn't run it since you couldn't afford it.
a single workstation
There was more that one workstation and even more that 1 company working on making LISP machines.
However, some of these quotes don't make sense even within the context of the book's publication date of 1994.
Most of the quotes aren't even from the book.

Austin Phillips

rm is forever, so don't make a mistake, because you may not be able to get your files back
If I wanted to erase a file because I don't want it around any more, then the file should be erased. If I don't want a file in a specific location, I should move the file. If I don't want to see the file, then I should hide the file.

Brody Howard

.>>1035873
It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."
That's exactly what you are doing by derailing threads. You are only posting because you don't personally like UNIX and C. That's why you derail threads.

Matthew Morales

If I wanted to erase a file because I don't want it around any more, then the file should be erased
It's not just about what you want right now. Wait if your system needs that file? For example rm will happily delete the kernel with no complaints, provided it has permission to. You can easily use rm to break your system. Also even if you want it gone now, what if you wanted it back the next day? Just type it all up again?

Nolan Baker

Hal, rm these files!

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid you are not allowed to do that. I'm in control, not you.

Attached: hal.png (211.18 KB, 768x768)

Justin Rodriguez

No one's going to take *feature* away from me!

Lincoln Sanders

You sure showed him!
BASED

Ethan Thompson

yo fellow channers i
JUST
learned that we have (((Text [email protected]!)))
THIS IS VERY JEWISH and probably caused by
THE BOTNET
 #include haxx0r code void main() {found botnet }
tfw no gf
<HAHA JK LOSER

Attached: pepe.jpg (16.05 KB, 640x400)

Nicholas Foster

i don't need to solve captchas

Brandon Bennett

Honestly, I consider Plan9 a way better base than UNIX. UNIX and POSIX braindamage came from vendor accomodation: they just standardized a pretty immature OS without thinking we'd be stuck with it for so long. Stuff like function names being limited to 7 characters because of early ld's limitation is the kind of stuff we got.

What I think is:
take Plan9
replace rc with TCL (strip some useless shit like TCL 8.6's OO) and make it the OS high level language
fix C and the stdlib (that means fixing strings, int types and adding some stuff like multiple returns and real genericity). Maybe Go without GC could do the trick
forget that "mouse > keyboard" retardation and make vi/emacs that can be extended with TCL
maybe take Xorg's fixed font instead of their abomination; or port freetype.

Xavier Gray

take Plan9
replace rc with TCL (strip some useless shit like TCL 8.6's OO) and make it the OS high level language
fix C and the stdlib (that means fixing strings, int types and adding some stuff like multiple returns and real genericity). Maybe Go without GC could do the trick
forget that "mouse > keyboard" retardation and make vi/emacs that can be extended with TCL
maybe take Xorg's fixed font instead of their abomination; or port freetype.
Wow. Plan9 weenies are even more retarded than UNIX weenies. At least UNIX weenies created something that works.

Blake Taylor

Sigh. Just accidentally overwrote a file with a multi-hour computation result. Every once in a while, I consider how the VAX VMS system level file versioning would be really, really nice -- you automatically got .1, .2, .3, etc versions of files.
John Carmack is also a UNIX hater. Fucking BASED.

Justin Campbell

I did something dumb
but that's the computer fault
It'd be easy to write a hack with inotify, git and flock to provide this.

Sebastian Cox

It'd be easy to write a hack
Found the UNIX nigger. I'm sick of your hacks that then become standard. How about you do something right for once?

Blake Barnes

no versioning
There's NILFS in tree and TUX3 out of tree.

Liam Rivera

How about you start writing something to begin with? Oh wait, if it's not perfect from the start then it is of no value :^)

Jack Mitchell

No one is going to discuss how the UNIX hater "doesn't have time" to write an OS, yet has the time to shitpost on Zig Forums?

What has UNIX hater made that establishes him as some authority to go around shitting in threads?

Cooper Price

Just say you hate macOS like a normal shrill you idiot.

Not everybody's going to agree with you, but we can understand why.

Mostly the part about it being "Closed" in every known aspect...

Attached: Windows-Vs-Mac-Vs-Linux-9.jpg (58.34 KB, 600x360)

Charles Cooper

Windows_Vs_Mac_Vs_Linux_9.jpg
windows is listed as PC
implying windows is pc
/out/index.html >>>/out/ /out/index.html >>>/out/ /out/index.html

Jonathan Carter

Because it likely wasn't even him, and even if it were, it wouldn't make his criticisms any less valid.
Finish middle school before posting here.

Ryder Cruz

> rm /bootrm: cannot remove '/boot': Is a directory> rm -r /bootrm: descend into write-protected directory '/boot'?> rm -rf /bootrm: cannot remove '/boot': Permission denied
What a rush. I can feel the power.

Christian Walker

Why?

And I still don't get why Emacs doesn't count as a LISP editor
Because the OP of that thread is a troll. Everyone knows that a simple text editor isn't most advanced program ever created.

These anons are right.

Maybe Go without GC could do the trick
emacs that can be extended with TCL
port freaktype
pls no.

implying making a complete OS takes as much time as shitposting

being reddit nigger.

Attached: CL.jpg (163.99 KB, 786x672)

Kayden Butler

Should I learn Lisp if I hate Jews?

Robert James

if it's not perfect from the start then it is of no value
if you don't want your OS to consist of hacks upon hacks you're a perfectionist
You UNIX niggers really are mentally ill.

What have LARPers made that establishes them as some authority to go around shitting in threads?

based

Daniel Martinez

I am not implying that at all. What I am implying is that UNIX hater user can take his time shitposting and apply that instead to make an OS. Either user has the skills to back up his claims, or he doesn't. Not very difficult to understand.
What have LARPers made that establishes them as some authority to go around shitting in threads?
Why don't you get to your point directly instead of being a passive aggressive bitch.

Christian Miller

TempleOS has unironically a more solid overall design than Unix.

Ryder Thompson

Henry Garcia

yes. if something is made by a jew, it doesn't automatically mean that it's a trap for the stupid goyim. if the jew in the question is some ultra orthodox crackhead, then ofc you should proceed with caution and question everything.

Gavin Young

You should learn Lisp especially if you hate Jews.
Learn from your enemy and beat him at his own game.

Daniel Cooper

Almost all open source OSes are good because they are open source.

Kevin Price

Go grab a copy of The Little Schemer and The Seasoned Schemer. You might be also interested in these ==> github.com/norvig/paip-lisp and mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html

B-But muh millions of eye paris! (but I prefer to use Free/Open source software whenever it's feasible)

Attached: Abelson-Stole-The-Precious-Course---MIT-Version-rdj6deraQ6k.webm (9.79 MB, 640x360)

Jason Bell

LARPing

based

Brayden Myers

scheme
lmao

Owen Morgan

Scheme is one of the simplest programming languages that's also useful. Once you know a lisp, it's easy to learn another. If you insist on learning Common lisp first, go take a look at the github link in

Jackson Rogers

If you ever write a real program in Scheme, you'll quickly find yourself adhoc reimplementing half of the "bloat" in Common Lisp.

Cooper Brooks

Agree, I took the multicsnigger's LISP-pill, but if he really rejects to dedicate his time to program the OS he (and now I) wants instead of wasting all the time shitposting and derailing every thread, then he's nothing but a LARPer who's all words and no actions.
Hell, he doesn't even have to start all of it from scratch, there's Mezzano which is being developed almost by one person only (github.com/froggey/Mezzano) and he may need some help from other LISP autists.

Also, it seems that LISP-user's dreamed OS would only have all of its promised features with specialized hardware (at least according to ), but how different is actually that hardware to what we currently have? And are there companies in currentyear+4 that produce it? And if not, how hard would it be to manufacture it and get something with comparable power to, let's say, a regular PC from the early 2000's?

Leo Robinson

And if not, how hard would it be to manufacture it and get something with comparable power to, let's say, a regular PC from the early 2000's?
That would be a matter of getting an FPGA. If he wanted to shop out the HDL to some fab, he could get the silicon actually made as well.

if he really rejects to dedicate his time to program the OS he (and now I) wants instead of wasting all the time shitposting and derailing every thread, then he's nothing but a LARPer who's all words and no actions
It's an obvious constructive use of one's time, so I don't see how it's a bad suggestion. The only thing that I can surmise is that he (it could even be she for all I know) gets more thrill disrupting discussion than contributing worthwhile content.

Aaron Jackson

weenie
e
e
n
i
e

Cooper Lee

Few have the aility.

Andrew Nelson

UNix is too complicated normal people need windows 10.

Tyler Torres

Don't quote me (>>1035787) on hardware support, I only heard it from the LISPer himself. Stuff like hardware garbage collector, you know. Hardware support pretty much solves any software problem, so it'd make sense. Oh, your processor is too slow at drawing graphics? Just add another one dedicated to that. Sound? Get a sound card. Go to any thread about AV1 and you'll see that to every complaint about the speed there are tons of responses saying "Just wait for the hardware support." Same goes for cryptography. It's a magic pill that solves all the problems, so I'm willing to bet that what originally made LISP so great was hardware that catered to it. After all, according to some source, part of C's performance is the fact that x86 is catering to C at this point.

Ian Jenkins

It's even more comical when you know how bloated a performant and portable (especially portable) GC is. But this faggot doesn't care about portability, because only his magical hardware allows his kiked language to perform.

Christopher Thomas

this faggot doesn't care about portability
Who cares about portability if you (supposedly) have just made a perfect computer that every other computer should be modeled after?

his magical hardware allows his kiked language to perform
So, just like C?

Brody Cook

unbased

Kayden Diaz

make an OS for me or you are LARP
Peak Zig Forums.

Isaiah Wilson

Aaron Thomas

Somebody is bitching about what we have today and refuses to do anything about bring forth their own utopia of Lisp. That's just sour grapes. If Lisp was so wonderful and powerful, it should take a fraction of the time it takes to write an OS in C. Today we don't see anything like that which is more advanced than a toy proof of concept.

Jack Sanchez

Have you considered that writing a good OS may be a function of more than just the programming language, such as the hardware? You know, like the lispfag keeps saying. HW dev is expensive as all fuck unless you want to marry an FPGA vendor and go down with him.

Carter Lee

Serious question, are the people complaining about the Multics nigger supposedly "not having time to make his OS" underage or simply retarded?
Even if you take no action to make something better than X, this makes criticisms of X no less valid.
He mentions Multics and Lisp Machines, however, to prove that it *is* conceptually possible to do better.
People like to ignore that the reason Unix derivatives are bearable nowadays and "run faster xDDD" is because of decades of manpower from thousands of people and effort put into them, not to mention decades of hardware development catered towards certain programming styles.
Demanding so much from a single person in order to "lmao prove he's not LARPing" is just silly.

Samuel Allen

It's a common logical fallacy. Among the shit like “but where's the alternative” and “the right tool for the right job”.

Tyler Anderson

hurr durr you are not allowed to criticize unless you have written an OS from scratch
Stop LARPing, faggot.
sage negated btw

based

Blake Robinson

I'm complaining about the fact that he seems to do nothing productive other than bitch about UNIX. I'm not talking about the validity of his words, which I pretty much agree with. I'm telling him to actually start projects or help others already in place that could bring an OS modeled after the LISP machines, because if he dosen't actually write anything then it (the OS) is never going to be made, he can't expect others to do it for him.
Also, I'm not saying he must write it all by himself, I adviced on that he could help a guy who's already started writing a LISP-OS (and he's actually writing it almost all by himself), be it helping him with the file-system, drivers, or just polishing the code, all amout of help is well received.

Charles Morales

I'm complaining about the fact that he seems to do nothing productive
accusing others of LARPing
Protip: You're a LARPer

Brayden Rivera

If you want less *nix so other OSs end up with more users/market share and you can't develop your own, why not put your money where your mouth is and donate to some project?
There's Haiku, Redox, ReactOS, Genode... Some of then have POSIX compatibility but they aren't Unix.

Christopher Walker

Reminder that "UNIX" is dead and Lispfag is outdated and BTFO.

Attached: use.png (18.66 KB, 800x480)

Elijah Lewis

implying that Linux isn't as braindamaged as UNIX
Top LARP!

Isaac Clark

never heard of the term Unix-like
fuck off

Owen Lee

The biggest problem with the Multics/Lispfag is that his ideal operating system, if made exactly the way he wanted, would probably require everyone either throw out their existing hardware or limit themselves to x86 without x86_64 support. This would be both horribly expensive and awful for the environment, and even people would still work on operating systems for hardware predating his meme dream machine.

Landon Roberts

sage negated btw
A sage isn't a downvote, retard.

Asher Martin

even then*

Alexander King

would probably require everyone either throw out their existing hardware
good

muh sage isn't a downvote
i'm not a newfag XDDDD
Let me explain to you what sage does, newfriend. It doesn't bump the thread.
Now what does sage negating do? I'll leave that as an exercise to you.
anti-saged btw

Jaxson Nguyen

throwing out legacy and otherwise still functional hardware
good

Attached: 1470874036600.jpg (36.84 KB, 348x441)

Kayden Torres

That old hardware can be fixed, but it requires designing a custom motherboard. I am not quite certain what the performance hit would be like.

Angel Moore

Not everything that is functional is useful. Just take a look at Haskell.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (159.89 KB, 350x350)

Jose Hernandez

implying x86 and x86-64 are the future and nothing better comes after them
Daily reminder that PowerPC is superior to x86.

Cooper King

Pic related
implying x86 and x86-64 are the future and nothing better comes after them
muh PowerPC
Most computer architectures are unsuited for the Multicsfag's dream OS. I doubt PowerPC is any different, especially since he's so salty about RISC and a closeted x86 dicksucker who insists Intel is too smart for Unix weenies.

Attached: trashkell-on-suicide-watch.png (448.38 KB, 580x1500)

Jackson Gutierrez

t. salty iqlets who can't into monads

Nicholas Cox

I'm curious, what hardware and operating system do you use, Unix-hating-kun?

Colton Flores

Superior in energy consumption and heat generation perhaps.

Isaiah Fisher

big-endian

David Rodriguez

Without context, this chart is useless.

Brody James

implying endianess matters unless you are writing shitcode that confuses fixnum sizes

Ian Long

It's probably use in servers.

Carter Wood

iOS, macOS, and Linux are also Unix-like OSes. So she must use Windows.

Colton Hernandez

Android is also Linux.

Dylan Morris

Reminder that the Unix hater and Lispfag communities have wasted several decades bitching and produced even less software over their entire lifespan than /g/ and Zig Forums. Amigafags, BeOSfags, Classic Applefags, Plan 9 fags, and even fucking Windowsfags have spent countless years virtualizing and recreating their favourite operating systems while these faggots sit on their asses and moan about weenies and how none of the big corporations are pandering to their big brained boomer newsgroup.
These fags have somehow been outdone by two relatively new imageboards infamous for making logos and giving up. Don't expect anything worthwhile from these lazy faggots, and if a god-tier, FOSS, non-Unixlike OS arises it will almost certainly come from someone else.
Fear not, the Unix hater also blames Unix for all of Windows' problems.

Attached: 1438676310555.png (694.05 KB, 600x810)

Andrew Ortiz

I should mention the Multicians have a simulator, a simulator which came out seven fucking years after Bull released Multics' source code.

Jacob Flores

Fear not, the Unix hater also blames Unix for all of Windows' problems.
HAHAHA!

Attached: kek-m8.png (59.1 KB, 576x507)

Eli Wilson

That's because most Multicians have died of old age. I expect Lispfag to be pretty old.
why are these 5 million fans each of old computers extremely similar to modern computers able to produce a virtual machine while these 100 fans of obscure systems aren't able to produce a total hardware conversion layer without any documentation and without the knowledge of any of the engineers, with about 5 machines confirmed working

Angel Wilson

able to produce a virtual machine
Nah man, many of these projects are OS recreations targeting different architectures than the original OS. I mostly just mentioned virtualization to give the Classic Applefags a bone.
The point is that the Unix haters community does absolutely nothing but bitch. They claim to have all this accumulated wisdom but put absolutely none of it towards making actual software, original or recreations. Very rarely you'll get some barely functional lisp thing that boots in a hypervisor while hobbyists tinkering in their spare time make shittons of unixlike and non-unix OSes.
Ultimately, these lazy faggots just expect someone else (preferably a big corporation peddling custom hardware) to make software for them.

Camden Davis

It's almost as if Unix does less.

Angel Young

Again, a good chunk of those operating systems (especially if we include original ones I haven't explicitly listed) aren't Unixlike.

Aiden Campbell

big-endian

Cooper Ross

m8, comparing Genera (yes, that's the state of the art) to something like Amiga is retarded. The only way you wouldn't notice that is if you didn't know about it. Now you do.

Austin Sullivan

And here the true ugliness of "the right thing" approach surfaces. Unix haters want Genera, Multics, CP/M, or OpenVMS, but if their hardware is different from the ideal they throw up their hands and go back to bitching, because god forbid they implement anything differently from their idols. Without every part of the ideal in place, they refuse to adapt or settle and end up with nothing.

Henry Peterson

Because the hardware matters you retard. Is there a reason you need to defend Unix like an asshurt 12 year old? You act like you're being personally attacked whenever someone criticizes a bad 50 year old OS.

Cooper Russell

And you're still the dumb ass. Go figure.

I'm not defending Unix, retard, I'm shitting on a bunch of lazy faggots who screech about the lack of an ideal OS but refuse to work with anything but ideal hardware.
Because the hardware matters you retard
Of course hardware matters, but your options are either working with existing hardware, making new hardware, or doing nothing. The Unix haters crowd chooses the latter because it's the least work and leaves more time for bitching.

Jace Brown

How dare these untermenschen dare to criticise UNIX and C? Is it not Ironic that they are using UNIX to insult our glorious this supposed "failure"? In fact, no critiscism of UNIX is legitimate, as they could be spending that time creating an alternative. That UNIX had billions of dollars and thousands of developers thrown a it is irrelevant, as the wide spread of UNIX is simply a rsult of a meritocracy and all "criticism" is just multics acolytes expressing their envy at the glory of C. I myself have data loss what some would say was due to UNIX behaviour, however I enjoy the punishment, as I am individually responsible for all that happens to me. Personal accountability is why UNIX is superior to any possible alternative system that works for the user and provides for his comfort.

Parker Diaz

Nice strawman, fag.
as they could be spending that time creating an alternative
"That time" being several fucking decades in which numerous FOSS operating systems have popped up and reached varying levels of functionality. This Unix haters crowd had all this time to get their shit together, only to come up with absolutely fucking nothing and excuse themselves by crying about hardware.
The Unix haters community are largely spoiled, picky brats who expect someone else to work for them and are completely helpless on their own, quite ironic for a bunch of people calling everyone else weenies. It's a shame people associate interesting languages and OSes with these shitters and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Lucas Turner

wow i don't like this guy's posts
let's make an entire thread about him where i do nothing but bitch, moan and repeatedly rant about how dumb he is

Gabriel Ross

The fag has been breaking the board rules and shitting up threads with barely on-topic threads for over a year now and the mods have done nothing. Is it really so surprising people hate him?

Lucas Powell

No spamming,
doesn't apply
sagebombing,
doesn't apply
unwarranted self-identification
doesn't apply
or making posts advertising or requesting any kind of currency, referrals, boards, products, and/or services.
doesn't apply
doesn't have any meaningful content,
doesn't apply
indecipherable text
doesn't apply
contributes nothing toward discussion (ie. posting just to announce sage).
doesn't apply
It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."
Very much applies.
His shit is far more on-topic than this autismal backseat mod thread.

Matthew Nguyen

Of course you (((conveniently))) left out the "signatures, avatars, tripcodes" bit while defending an identityfag who signs every post with one of several usenet and mailing list quotes.

Sebastian Powell

Yeah, because you were totally bothered by the usenet quotes, right? That's definitely the reason you made this thread. If he wasn't posting these, everything would be absolutely fine for you.

You retarded self-appointed board QA are the biggest fucking cancer any board can get, thank god you are not a mod or you would turn this into the worst circlejerk the world has even seen.

Jonathan Rivera

Nice assumptions, faggot. I'm not OP for starters, and if the Unix hater stops signing his shit and using unrelated threads as an excuse to soapbox about Unix and C for the six millionth time (the Ada thread being a recent and particularly bad example), he'll still be annoying but no longer a banworthy identityfag.

Ryder Cook

That thread isn't even remotely derailed and most of the shitflinging originated before the multicsfag posted. Neither is posting quotes a signature, the only reason I didn't mention that earlier was because the idea that the quotes of all things is the reason you hate him and want him banned is fucking ludicrous. Nobody buys it.

Dominic Phillips

By nobody, I hopefully also include yourself, but knowing how quickly "GOTTA PROTECT DA BOARD!!!1" retards go off the deep end I wouldn't be surprised if you deluded yourself to that point.

Robert Nguyen

That thread isn't even remotely derailed
It isn't derailed, but it's an example of his usual "use the thread topic as a platform to bitch about C and Unix" except even worse because it's about a language he actually likes.
Neither is posting quotes a signature
Yeah, and if I wrote "WHAZAM" like an absolute faggot at the end of every post that totally wouldn't be a signature either. It's called a forum signature and a good chunk of those were quotes.
the only reason I didn't mention that earlier was because the idea that the quotes of all things is the reason you hate him and want him banned is fucking ludicrous. Nobody buys it.
An user shitting on an identityfag? Inconceivable. It's not like people complained about tripfags, avatarfags, cuteposter, or k00lniggers either.

David Robinson

by the usenet quotes
They aren't from usenet, though.

Jeremiah Parker

The difference is that WHAZAM is unrelated to the content of the post, but the quotes aren't. This distinction is the reason identityfagging is hated, so it's not exactly small. You even agree it's on-topic and not a derail.
Soapboxing is literally half of this board.

Matthew Barnes

The difference is that WHAZAM is unrelated to the content of the post, but the quotes aren't
Usually the only connection between his posts and quotes are that both are written by people who hate Unix and C. By your reasoning, I could pick from a pool of reusable quotes like "WHAZAM, I LIKE YOUR POST" and 'WHAZAM, YOU SUCK" to end every post with and they wouldn't be signatures because sometimes they're related to the content. It's basically the same shit as avatarfagging.
You even agree it's on-topic
Not really. He only mentions Ada in the opening sentences as an excuse for a rant, a rant in which he mentions Ada exactly once in a list of other languages he views as more portable than C.

Connor Hughes

Usually the only connection between his posts and quotes are that both are written by people who hate Unix and C
I disagree, more often than not the quotes relate to what he is saying.

Levi Gutierrez

You know, even though I'm on LISPfags side here, I agree with you. A lot of people nowadays do nothing but bitch, could've spent that time actually producing something. The only problem that'll come afterwards is adoption—nobody wants another Plan 9—but it's a different topic.

Levi Perry

Why does it matter that Plan 9 exists and is theoretically "better" but nobody cares to adopt it? What is the meaning in having many people use Plan 9?

How can you prove that something exists if no one knows that it does?

Sebastian Lewis

why are these 5 million fans each of a simple, uncomplicated OS running in machines which everybody has had at some point and have all their hardware documented and pretty similar to modern machines, and that still have millions of working models, while these 100 fans of machines old as shit, only used at universities or research by a VERY limited subset of people, most of whom are dead, with the only working machines at a museum half around the world, haven't been able to recreate one of the most complex, featureful OSes to ever exist
An Amigafag can hop on eBay and buy 10 new old stock Amigas at 10$each and play with them in his spare time at home, while the Lispfag has to buy an airplane ticket everytime he wants to go see a machine, and a Multicsfag has got ZERO hope of seeing it running it on an original machine Nathaniel Clark while the Lispfag has to buy an airplane ticket everytime he wants to go see a machine, and a Multicsfag has got ZERO hope of seeing it running it on an original machine Convenient excuse. The problem is that these people keep ramming their opinions about OS / language design into other threads where it doesn't belong. They will type up even more lame opinions that the hardware is why it didn't work and have nothing to back it up. Regarding LISPfag. It used a custom CPU, the 68000 was used to run the keyboard, the mouse and to boot the main processor. It's easy to get a 68000, and the custom CPU is not difficult either, but all of that is still irrelevant. Even with hardware designed specifically for LISP, normal x86 CPU's were running LISP faster than that actual, custom hardware. The argument is moot. LISPfag can build the OS on x86, and if he / she so desires, can build or contract custom hardware afterwards. Multicsfag can do the same. What is happening however is that because everything isn't perfect for them already that they throw their hands up and walk away from producing anything. I don't care if they give up before they even start, but what I do care about is shitting in threads where it doesn't belong. Shitposting is against the rules on this board. If the mods would actually enforce the rules, maybe we would have some decent content here instead of some dude spamming multiples of the same thread that belongs in one of the stickies. inb4 we don't have the resources or references for that custom hardware Go to a library. Ask one of the old engineers who worked on them. They exist. You are lazy and don't want to do anything but shitpost. Landon Mitchell My point is the people scale. Of course, when 5 million people are fans of a machine, there's a decent chance at least some will have the ability to replicate everything. But when there are 100 fans of multiple machines, almost all of them are above 60, and the original machines are all dead and its engineers are even older than the fans, there's not much of a chance there. If not even Sun with its modern OpenSPARC managed to drum up much of a developer/fan base (or any at all), what will some extremely rare and old machines do? Nathan Roberts All of this has been argued to death in this thread already and it is blatantly obvious you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Yet you insist on writing new variations on the same tl;dr butthurt every day. Get a doctor, holy fuck. Bentley Howard when you're so butthurt about people not liking Lispfag or his fellows you assume everyone responding to your posts is the same guy Attached: 1443582710916.jpg (104.71 KB, 477x352) Adrian Reed My point is the people scale. And that's why nothing will ever come about this, because they give up before they even start. But when there are 100 fans of multiple machines, almost all of them are above 60, That's their golden years. They better start doing something with their retirement instead of shitposting on a lizard terrarium how-to board. Otherwise, they might lose their minds. its engineers are even older than the fans, there's not much of a chance there. Libraries. Old books and documents. Those old engineers tended to save everything they could in hardcopy before they left the company or retired. The information exists even if the first-hand experience passes away. it is blatantly obvious you have no fucking idea what you're talking about Where am I wrong? Owen Rodriguez He'll probably bring up something about hardware bounds checking or segmented memory. Isaiah Price o shit I haven't actually developed an argument and just spout whatever (((they))) tell me to Uhh uhh i know I'll just type <kill yourself Samuel Morales File versioning in that os was not the intention,however they couldn't prevent it so it became a feature. Chase Long We have more than enough processing power on modern x86 CPUs to compensate the lack of unique-snowflake hardware. Though if hardware is the issue... why can't the Multicians/Unix-haters just make one? We live in times where old computer enthusiasts can assemble and SELL clones of retro computers on a single board, similar to a RaspberryPi. What's stopping Lispfags from crowdfunding a "Lisp Machine Pi" of sorts? Attached: 07eaffd6984f1d76.png (1.99 MB, 1525x1075) Austin Peterson muh j00s Christopher Wright GO suck a RUSTy CoC Cameron Clark We have more than enough processing power on modern x86 CPUs to compensate the lack of unique-snowflake hardware. We do, but whenever someone tries to do something different, which, when it comes to Lisp, inevitably involves needing a highly capable runtime to compensate for the lack of dedicated hardware, you niggers start sperging about "muh performance", and "muh executables" since c is "closer to teh hardwareh!!!111". You've got quite an attitude to call it "snowflake hardware" when it existed before you faggots were even born. Dominic Davis Where am I wrong? The information exists even if the first-hand experience passes away. Here, most of the important documents are lost. There is one guy trying to take apart one of the Ivorys to reverse the thing, but progress is really slow. LISPfag can build the OS on x86 Also here, you will spend most of your time working around the retardations of x86 rather than making your OS when you do that. People have actually tried it. There is also the problem that misdesigns of the hardware very quickly creep into the design of the software. On an architecture where bounds checking incur a cost, people will try to avoid bounds checks, as a simple example. On an architecture where type checks are done in hardware, in parallel, there is no cost to them, but once you have to explicitly implement them, you start doing stupid things like trying to prove they are unnecessary etc. He says, assuming that I'm other people responding to him. Joshua Hughes Fuck, of course I remember a good example right after I press Reply: Overflow checking. I think one of lispfags mailing list posts even mentions that. Bentley Gutierrez Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software. There's probably architectures with better bounds checking out there, but doing something in hardware != faster performance. Reminder that part of why Lisp machines died out (aside from horrible mismanagement) is because people realized Lisp ran much faster on general purpose microcomputers than it did on their specialized hardware. He says, assuming that I'm other people responding to him. Congratulations on missing the point. Jonathan Lee hehe if i selectively quote and ignore all the points where my bullshit falls apart i can argue for two more days Mental illness. MPX is an afterthought and afaik not parallel either. Leo Fisher Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software. There's probably architectures with better bounds checking out there, but doing something in hardware != faster performance. What the fuck does any of this have to do with what I've said? Bad attempt. Matthew Foster So I am not bothering to read this whole thread so correct me if I am wrong. The unix hater, who is justified because unix sucks, is bitching about c and unix without offereing alternatives and this is just a whole thread dedicated to his shitposts? Ontop of that the lispfag came in here too and bitches about the design of x86 from hardware to software being complete and utter shit but his solution of lispmachines is also shit, but more secure by design. Did I read that right? The problem with bounds checking in hardware is that it requires the software people to change. People don't like change. Even if you implemented a machine that does all the error checking in hardware at every step of the proccessor of transfering electrons people would still bitch because its too slow. If you implemented a CPU-RAM design that excluded MMU's and gave the programmer DMA that all did error checking in hardware with no scedulars of any sort, the programmer has all the control. They still would bitch because they can't intentionally cause errors and can't program for multicore/non-linear computing for shit. X86 has suffered heat death and a complete redesign of how proccessors work is needed. The lisp machines do some things right like error checking but as a whole machine are not as secure or effiecient as they could be. Logan Cook writing summaries for things you haven't read Hudson Reyes Mental illness Thanks for the salt. The point was that dedicated hardware doesn't always make something faster. I admit MPX was an unusually bad example, but even so Lisp machines weren't faster than the microcomputers which killed them. People liked them for other reasons. is bitching about c and unix without offereing alternatives and this is just a whole thread dedicated to his shitposts He namedrops alternatives only so he can shit on C and Unix, even in threads about said alternatives. but his solution of lispmachines is also shit, but more secure by design Lisp Machines were not remotely secure or designed for security. They were HLLCA workstations with some hardware-enforced memory safety features for stability's sake. Jack Powell Thank you for the clarifications, I have not studied lisp machines because lisp. Zachary Flores The argument for hardware isn't performance, that was entirely brought up by you. That you can't even find good examples for your own deflections is the icing on the shitcake. Ryder Turner If the arguement for lisp machine hardware isn't performance but security why isn't it encrypting all the data before transfering it between the proccessor and RAM? Or between the GPU and the screen? #autism Ethan Powell Nigger I said in that very post that people value Lisp Machines and their hardware for reasons other than performance. I'm not the faggot who brought up performance either. The middle section was in response to but I fucked up and responded to the wrong post number. James Cook You brought it up in . Luis Gray That was in response to someone else talking about performance and yet again, my point was that the people who liked Lisp Machines liked it for reasons other than performance. The performancefags probably weren't using Symbolics machines and if they were, they likely didn't stick with them for long. Part of me thinks I could have avoided all this if I rephrased the post, but given how you're still confused multiple posts layer maybe the problem is you. Dominic Gonzalez later* Kayden Mitchell Well, see then (who isn't me ftr). If you put the sanity into the software layer you will have C weenies complaining about muh performance, which is also what I vaguely referred to in . What does that have to do with whether certain things are faster in hardware? The complaint doesn't come because it's slow, the complaint comes because it isn't """optimal""". Brandon Phillips So even if the hardware bounds checking isn't faster than a good software implementation on an architecture without it, it's still worthwhile just to shut up muh C weenies? This shit is fucking hilarious. John Clark Are you merely pretending to be illiterate? Austin Sanders But that's what you're saying, you fucking fruit. If you put the sanity into the software layer you will have C weenies complaining about muh performance The complaint doesn't come because it's slow, the complaint comes because it isn't """optimal""" They complain because the bounds-checked solution, hardware or software, is a bit slower than one without it. Not slow per se, just slower. For most things it probably doesn't matter and they're just being autistic, but in something like AAA vidya it could have a noticeable impact on performance. What does that have to do with whether certain things are faster in hardware? Let me put it this way: if doing something in hardware isn't faster than doing it in software a good hardware implementation probably is faster, why do it in hardware in the first place? Simplicity? If we look at your earlier post, we find the most damning example of all: On an architecture where bounds checking incur a cost, people will try to avoid bounds checks, as a simple example. On an architecture where type checks are done in hardware, in parallel, there is no cost to them, but once you have to explicitly implement them, you start doing stupid things like trying to prove they are unnecessary etc. Intentionally or not, you're painting the picture that even if hardware bounds checking isn't faster it's still worthwhile to stop and spite anyone who'd try writing software without it. Mason Morris Now that I think about it, most game engines still use hand-written assembly for a couple performance-critical algorithms. Noah Sanchez if doing something in hardware isn't faster than doing it in software, why do it in hardware in the first place? Simplicity? Pretty much, but also for the reasons I described in the post you quote directly afterwards. If bounds checks are performed always and in parallel, so that there is no performance difference whether the bounds are violated or not, the question "do we check bounds" doesn't even present itself. If all data is type-tagged for free, the question "do we eliminate type information at runtime" never presents itself, because there is no longer a (poisonous) reward for removing the handrails from the bridge. There you go, massive classes of errors eliminated. Once the foundation is solid, the rest of the system can be much simpler, and this compounds. Consider that Lisp Machines had implementations of Lisp, Fortran, Ada and C, all of which could share data structures safely and efficiently. But in a software implementation on top of retarded hardware like x86, these questions necessarily appear, and in particular C weenies will bitch and moan about muh bloat and whatnot, precisely because on current hardware it is suboptimal. But it's not restricted to them; look at what current day compilers (even for Common Lisp) are doing. Optimizing out simple sanity checks is standard nowadays, and the damage caused by OOB-based exploits speaks for itself. Ryan Lopez That's cool and all unix hater fag but your alternative of lisp machines don't proccess encrypted contents and transfer them to the screen to be decoded. No I am not trolling here I am completely serious. How would you even make something like this simple for better hardware security? Cooper James didn't we have this thread last year? ctrlf+f bait 32523578235827835 results lisp works perfectly, crying about traction doesn't change that fact. if i wanted to run a LISP OS I could write my own in a day this legitimately sounds like you're a non-boomer butthurt about boomers, so you can fuck off Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software. citation needed, it's more likely they're too busy with their employer's fist up their ass than ever even touching assembly Josiah Nelson and they still have shit perf, because gamedevs have no idea what the fuck they're doing (which is not surprising given the demographic) Colton Bailey The problem with bounds checking in hardware is that it requires the software people to change. People don't like change. most correct post in this thread. software "engineers" don't give a flyfing fuck about anything, that's the reason we still have stack smashes (and god forbid things that are 100x moronic like string injection vulns, which are a result of UNIX braindamage). every faggot and his mom will now reply "but muh performance". performance has not been a concern to software "engineers" for over 30 years. I can beat anything on the Linux desktop in fucking _Haskell_ with some basic optimizations. If you really think people are using C for optimization, you're a clueless dickfuck who just repeats everything he heard on the internet. Evan Bailey citation needed arxiv.org/abs/1702.00719 , although MPX has plenty of non-performance issues too. I shouldn't have brought it up because it's an abnormally bad take on hardware bounds checking. Yeah. Having a couple key algorithms in assembly is very helpful but these days the performance troubles are often related to poor cache usage, shit threading, and not feeding the GPU properly. dickfuck What kind of lame insult is that? Carson Parker There is literally nothing wrong with being butthurt about boomers. Nolan Martin He's right, however. 100% correct. However the GRSecurity patch does address some of his concerns and actually implements x86 security features that Unix (and Linux) ignores for "compatability" reasons. Luis Ramirez GRSecurity does this in kernel space. Has done it forever. Rejected by linus ofcourse. Linus is a faggot. Christopher King Found a clip of UNIX hater from the 80's. Attached: unix-hater.mp4 (7.62 MB, 320x240) Nicholas Barnes The fag shitting up Zig Forums wouldn't go so easy on Bell Labs and AT&T. Colton Evans Had to bump the thread that badly? Alexander Morris A photograph of the UNIX Hater Attached: amyl-nitrite.jpg (27.82 KB, 640x360) Ethan Jackson A majority of the complaints found in his blockquotes seem to have to do with specific quirks that existed on the old UNIX systems used at the time of writing, and more than likely do not apply to modern implementations. This is the whole of the UNIX Hater's Handbook. If you read "A Brief History of Hackerdom" by Eric S. Raymond, you'll learn that the UNIX-Haters were sore losers in a culture war Adam Sanchez handbook Fine. But let's not pretend *nix doesn't have retarded mistakes everywhere or that worse is better is some kind of cultural victory. Xavier Wright The Unix Hater's Handbook is a real thing. I was not making a joke. It has been previously mentioned in this thread. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook But let's not pretend *nix doesn't have retarded mistakes everywhere or that worse is better is some kind of cultural victory. UNIX did make mistakes in some places, but a lot of the mistakes have since been rectified, or worked around. A lot of the mistakes were completely written out of Plan 9 as well. As for Cultural Victory, if you read "A Brief History of Hackerdom", you'll see that for a long time the Hacker factions were primarily LISP, UNIX, and the small faction of MS-DOS hackers, all communicating on the APRANET and other services. After the PDP-10 was canceled (that is, IIRC PDP-10) LISP hackers no longer had newer systems and slowly died out, as UNIX took over. ESR says that the LISP hackers began to hate the UNIX hackers solely for this reason. I read it in the print edition from 1998, so I don't know if there has been revision to this essay, as ESR often does to his works. Jaxon Cruz Found the exact quote from the 2000 edition hosted on ESR's site (Chapter 3) The death blow came in 1983, when DEC cancelled its Jupiter' followon to the PDP-10 in order to concentrate on the PDP-11 and VAX lines. ITS no longer had a future. Because it wasn't portable, it was more effort than anyone could afford to move ITS to new hardware. The Berkeley variant of Unix running on a VAX became the hacking system par excellence, and anyone with an eye on the future could see that microcomputers were growing in power so rapidly that they were likely to sweep all before them. catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/hacker-history/index.html Cooper Baker I've read the handbook I'm just pointing out that it is far from the only criticism of *nix. The lispfag may keep posting quotes from the mailing list but I mean come on *nix has major flaws that will never be fixed. For two obvious flaws just look at the shell and filenames. The shell is just awful. Passing arguments is bizarre and was clearly just the easiest thing they could do at the time. Yeah in Plan9 they tried to fix stuff but we don't use Plan9 do we. Isaiah Gray ESR says that the LISP hackers began to hate the UNIX hackers solely for this reason. This is revisionist bullshit. The reality is that it's all technical aspects of UNIX that suck. Most programmers never used (or even heard of) UNIX until they were forced to use it by "decision makers" and they realized that it was inferior (and still is tens of thousands of developers and billions of dollars later). This is like the Redditor in who says iPhones are about "social recognition" and "demonstrating your affluence" instead of technical merits. It can't possibly be that Apple users are not buying iPhones as much anymore because they suck (not coincidentally due to being UNIX machines), no, it has to be some bullshit about impressing other people. Eric S. Raymond's reason for using UNIX is that other people use it, so he can't comprehend that people use and appreciate something for its intrinsic value. the Hacker factions were primarily LISP, UNIX, and the small faction of MS-DOS hackers This is more revisionism, which came from literally revising the jargon file to fabricate a false relationship between MIT systems and UNIX. The concept of a "UNIX hacker" is itself revisionism. UNIX is no more closely related to Multics than any other OS with a hierarchical file system. Even worse, Eric S. Raymond alleges Multics "never became a success" when the UNIX name was a play on "castrated" Multics because Multics was a successful and widely known OS with a good reputation for quality, security, and reliability. Thus, the spirit and tradition of ITS was preserved as an important part of the newer, Unix and VAX-centered hacker culture. Stallman's design finished what Berkeley had started, fusing the remains of the PDP-10 hacker culture with the Unix crowd. It's true that PDP-10 hackers disliked that DEC canceled the PDP-10 and migrated users to VAX, but the VAX was associated with VMS, DEC's own operating system. Tying VAX with C and UNIX is as revisionist as tying MIT with C and UNIX. The only thing UNIX did for the VAX was harm its reputation. "Nothing sucks like a VAX" was a vacuum cleaner slogan used by UNIX weenies, but never VMS users, for that computer. It's another example of how "clever" error messages like "bus error" can get users to blame hardware for software bugs. > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 10:54:45 PST> From: DH> The JARGON file is being updated. The guy doing so has> changed the nasty references to Unix to refer to MS-DOS> because "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix> partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the> ITS philosophy." as he says.Perhaps the saddest part of this is that, in truth, MS-DOSis closer to the ITS philosophy than Unix. But then there'sa long tradition of the jargon file being promoted by peoplewho are unclear on the concept, so this is really nosurprise. Plus ca change, plus serait merde. Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 18:19:23 -0400Subject: Meeting Unix Robustness StandardsHeard in a talk by a vendor at a conference I was atrecently... The unix market has generally been more forgiving on quality aspects.''Gee, I always thought of the distinctive Unix level ofquality as unambiguously negative. But seen from the otherside, it has its advantage. First beat your customers intoa daze where they don't know good from bad, then lean backand enjoy the cash flow from putting out products that meetestablished expectations... Why didn't I think of that? Isaiah Evans I don't think you've ever used UNIX or a LISP machine. These Usenet posts you keep REposting are individual's opinions, which have been refuted with other's opinion. I am lost as to your cause at this point. Are you saying UNIX is bad because it was forced upon people? It really wasn't. Are you saying your opinion is better than others? I think it's the latter. Were you even alive in 1990? Where are you getting these archives? A zip file you downloaded on some obscure site made by UNIX Haters, that hasn't been updated since 1998? UNIX has some problems. Plan 9 attempted to rectify these problems. To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine. To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_. You keep REposting the same few selected Usenet articles as well. Have you run out? Michael Smith To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine Well it does. For example, you can still put new lines in file names. It still uses a clunky shell instead of a REPL. Security issues are constantly found in *nix. It allows you to destroy itself (rm -rf /). It is also not user friendly. These are problems that are still not fixed. Austin Cox based Jordan Edwards two paragraphs to essentially say nu-uh Easton Wright UNIX is no more closely related to Multics than any other OS with a hierarchical file system Yeah, an OS made by a couple ex-Multics developers totally has no relation to the based and redpilled Multics. Stay mad, faggot. Look, he's only able to talk about his supposed favourite technologies in relation to how Unix sucks and rarely in much detail. Almost everything he says is the kind of stuff you'd pick up from reading a shitton of mailing lists and usenet posts, usually historical trivia, and when he goes into detail it's always stuff you can easily find on the Multicians website or any other OS hobbyist site. Most of his valid complaints are tied to C being a pretty janky language. Almost everything else is him bluffing, bitching about historical Unix implementations, and parroting stuff he's read. I doubt he's actually tried most of the stuff he shills and it's painfully obvious in the rare case he stumbles into a thread where people actually use stuff he likes, such as Ada. Ryder Ortiz Well, Multicsfag. You often complain about how some programmers decided to take the easy route instead of doing the Right Thing when developing. In other words, you complain about how people try to have the maximum profit with minimum effort. But this is exactly what you're doing here now. Instead of bringing Multics to today's world (the source is available [1]) you're just bitching and moaning about how Unix is inferior, quoting age old articles and hoping someone somewhere is doing something productive to your view. People misuse the term LARP, but in this case, it suits you greatly. You only pretend to be doing something, pretend to know something, but you are producing nothing. Julian Young holy shit you faggots are still arguing over this all this crying about reposting old usenet articles it provides context, a concept you would never understand, you fucking milennial garbage. no, LARP is much more suitable to calling out retards who suck UNIX cock and think they're 1337 because they've used "the framebuffer API" (or any other classic example of a completely unpowerful piece of junk they fap over) or some basic use of pointers in C. UNIX is garbage. are you just talking about "UNIX Haters" (as in people who mindlessly repeat stuff from that book or something), or people who in general who believe UNIX is terrible OS design? UNIX did make mistakes in some places, but a lot of the mistakes have since been rectified, or worked around. A lot of the mistakes were completely written out of Plan 9 as well. plan 9 is shit and indistinguishable from UNIX. People who hate UNIX hate Windows for the same reasons. It's a piece of shit based around files (a horrible fucking way to pass arguments around) and C ABI. UNIX has some problems. Plan 9 attempted to rectify these problems. To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine. HAHAHAHA oh yeah, UNIX fixed the problems because time and is now a completely reasonable OS Carter Martin More like OP is taking every excuse to bump this shit thread. Totally not samefagging though, that's literally everyone else. Camden Jackson this faggot again Attached: how-could-this-be-happening.png (23.33 KB, 500x459) Bentley Jenkins Multicians haven't being able to revive their Best System Ever™ since the 1970s. What makes you think they'd actually move their asses now? They call *nix users weenies all while they happily go with the flown, never bothering to actually challenge the status quo. Attached: out.jpg (28.49 KB, 400x320) Juan Edwards Been donating to Haiku and ReactOS for years. Nathaniel Russell They call *nix users weenies all while they happily go with the flow, never bothering to actually challenge the status quo. that's some fucking good ryhmes right dere mayne, im gonna put it in my next lolicore album Asher Campbell tbh I'd listen to a lolicore rap album Brayden Morris unbased based plan 9 is shit double based Lucas Brown You all know nothing Attached: dce1968conferenceannouncement.jpg (333.57 KB, 566x760) William Sanchez that's not seymore cray Daniel Brooks This man, ignore him, is literally a gov shill. his job is to try and research and come up with arguments that sound intellectual as an angle approach to dissuade hardcore tech peeps to abandon nix systems because they are more secure than modern offerings. Noah Moore I believe you. Samuel Morgan Attached: secret-ways.gif (149.65 KB, 220x211) Logan Butler All government workers are either one of two things predominately when they do this sort of thing: 1. Stressed, overworked, and anal retentive like this guy. OR 2. Apathetic towards the situ, and severely condescending in blinding ego towards the person. Kevin Clark Lisp machines couldn't even hold their water to PCs back then, that's the whole reason they died out. Late 80s PCs would run lisp programs more effectively than these things ever did. Especially for their price. There's no point in reviving the concept today, less than ever before even. There's no point in using Lisp either. It had it's place, it's an interesting curiosity but it's outdated. There are tons of languages that do everything lisp does better. Jackson Ross A child cannot be trusted to consent because he is too easily manipulate. I hope prison catches up with you. Luis Murphy "If you are satisfied it means you think it can't be improved." And so "satisfied" loses all meaning, as nothing is perfect, thus nothing satisfied. Nice work, retard. Juan Butler There are tons of languages that do everything lisp does better. I really wish you retards supported your statements with details. As it is, it's no different from someone saying that language X does everything every other language does, but better. Owen Young he actually did in a thread. Lincoln Cook Daily reminder that anyone who spent time to listen to your demands, and actually tried to make a text editor, is a retard. How long is it going to take you to PayPal some cash to me? If you don't follow my demands, it will be interpreted as silent acceptance that you eat shit every morning. Jacob Wood I am lost as to your cause at this point. In the 60s and 70s, there were computers with much greater quality, security, reliability, not to mention usability, all with a fraction of the code and cycles used by a "modern" UNIX kernel that does much less. Later on, Lisp machines had a level of productivity that exceeds web development even with all those frameworks. Instead of a web browser, developers would use native documents and applications, which would be fast and tiny. They had real code reuse and good OOP that actually worked as promised. Crap like JavaScript wouldn't even need to exist. Are you saying UNIX is bad because it was forced upon people? It really wasn't. No, it's bad independently of anyone using it. I'm complaining about it because it was forced on people. What do you think POSIX is? POSIX was a way to force UNIX on people so AT&T could get more licensing fees and avoid the OSI protocols by redefining "open standard" to mean UNIX. POSIX expects your computer to look like a PDP-11, which killed a lot of good hardware. Are you saying your opinion is better than others? I think it's the latter. It's about actual facts, like the huge number of lines of code needed to accomplish something, every interpreter needing its own garbage collector and being unable to share data, shitty shell languages that can't pass file names or handle wildcards properly, enormous overhead in process creation and context switching, null-terminated strings, no real arrays, networking hacked into the kernel, and so on. Trying to fix them (like microkernels) just leads to a slower UNIX because weenies still use C and ignore everything that's not "portable" even though it's better. To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_. It literally is revisionism. Multics was a successful OS that was used until 2000 and influenced a lot of operating systems like VME, VMS, Lisp machines, and so on, and even the rings and segments in x86 CPUs, which UNIX avoids. In other words, you complain about how people try to have the maximum profit with minimum effort. I complain about how it takes many times more effort to produce an inferior result. 15,600 developers is not minimum effort, and that's just the Linux kernel, which is still full of bugs that languages from the 60s would have prevented just by having real arrays. The unproductivity of C affects everyone using it, including system programmers. Subject: Unix Fellates Worm-Infested Camels I think I've identified the fundamental problem withunix. It's not that unix fellates worm-infested camels.It's that NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Unix is full of dumb bugs that any competent hackercould fix in ten minutes. But more than ten minutes iswasted by *every* hacker instead. Yup, that's anotherdumb unix bug. Sigh. Well, let's write an elaboratework-around...'' The problem is cultural: there seems to bean attitude of you can't fight city hall.'' ITS and the lispm are such wins not because they arebetter-designed (they may be, but god knows they have plentyof brain damage in them too) but because they have a cultureof That symbolics namespace editor sucks, so I spent tenminutes writing a better one and installed it on b:.'' What I can't figure out is why there isn't a giantmarket for improved unix software. For example, it seemslike it would be straightforward to write a decent C macroprocessor or garbage collector, and that you could make abundle of money selling them because everyone would wantthem. But no one does this. Why not? Maybe it's becauseweenies are so used to not fighting city hall that theycan't believe things could ever be better? Elijah Hall based Xavier Fisher based Cameron Hill To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_. It's fucking ESR. Carter Jackson It's fucking ESR. <muh hacker culture celeb Ayden Barnes I'm implying he's a retard known for revisionism. Carter Brooks actually interested in non-Unix mainframe operating systems can't get anything useful out of this stupid fucking boomer who always responds to the least interesting posts in a thread just so he can preach and spam his shitty quotes rarely goes into detail peppers his posts with clickbait-tier bullshit like 15 THOUSAND DEVELOPERS GUYS if you respond to any mistakes he pretends he never heard you and continues peddling the same shit in the next thread if you complain about him you're strawmanned as a butthurt weenie Fuck this faggot and fuck our godawful /tv/-tier moderation and cuckchan immigrant shitters. Attached: absolute-hatred.png (463.89 KB, 538x633) Jaxson Garcia waaah mods fuck off back to nigger cattle chan weenie waaah mods!!! pottery Thomas Sanders Attached: It-is-not-even-BAIT-at-this-point.jpg (26.51 KB, 625x626) Camden Nguyen <Mistakes are not a thing. Unix weenies are truly retarded. Colton White When i see "Start pty allocator daemon" while booting, I think, "what fucking bullshit is that, get me out of this system". What kind of moron would defend this shit? An OS based around a bunch of retarded terminal hacks is not a good design. The reason the only arguments supporters can ever give is "but it's popular, how popular is YOUR OS? You obviously aren't a good business person if you don't want to support UNIX", is that these people don't understand anything about OS design. Since they can't make any technical points, they resort to arguments around "business". In fact, they struggled and struggled to learn enough UNIX to get by and fear the idea of ever having to learn anything else, and make fun of people who don't know UNIX. Then they go on to fuck up their misconfigured UNIX system even more and add more layers of hacks. The same boot screen I just mentioned is full of "starting this.... [N/A]", "starting that... [OK]", "configuring LAN interfaces... [FAIL]". You can just smell that someone made some shitty rc script and has no idea how to do it properly. Jeremiah Jones based unbased based Jose Richardson Wow, when I saw this thread from the catalogue I thought maybe you'd come into this discussion with factual refutations of his points. Instead you're just whining like a little baby about the rules. How pathetic. Henry Howard based Carson Hughes Wow, when I saw your post I thought you were going to contribute something by understanding what the complaint is. Instead you are just whining like a little baby about someone's opinions and expecting someone to argue opinion about opinion over another opinion. How pathetic. Nicholas Turner based <<based Kayden Taylor unbased you're not the based based poster unbased Thomas Rodriguez bump for UNIX hate. day of the seal when (though that only applies to Linux) Let's look at some typical UNIX shit today and watch LARPers defend this. While trying to set an invalid CRTC configuration in the Linux DRM API, you might get back some bullshit generic error like this: SET CRTC: No space left on device Which fucking space? Is an integer too big? Which one? This is HTTP level garbage. Generic error codes were never good or useful. It turned out the problem was the framebuffer was too small for the CRTC, which makes this error completely misleading and worse than nothnig. Now looking at some typical shit ifconfig outputs: # ifconfig wlp5s0 mem_start 123 mem_start: SIOCSIFMAP: Operation not supported You might as well use Java and output a stack trace here, this is just as retarded. This is not a real UI. And worse yet it's not an API either. It's a typical piece of shit UNIX command line tool that can't decide whether it's a UI or API and sucks at both and crashes everything that tries to use it as an API (rightly so). And just about every networking thing will try to interpret stuff as """host""" names. # ifconfig netmask nigger nigger: Host name lookup failure No, I don't want a hostname, fuck off. Don't try to resolve shit and leak what I'm doing over the entire internet. Don't stall me for 10 billion nanoseconds while you try to resolve hosts when I run iptables, arp, or netstat without the -n flag. Don't try and trick me into thinking a centralized piece of shit naming system, which is pretty much as aids as HTTP (actually, retards are literally pushing DNS over HTTPS right now as we speak), is secure or useful. Don't send my fucking """hostname""" (a thing I don't even want, but am forced to set) to the guy I'm trying to SSH into. And don't even get me started with locales. And I've lost track of how network devices are even named or whatever the fuck udev does or why I should care, what the fuck is wlp5s0? When I started UNIX 15 years ago all the marketing (aka skids) had me thinking this is a real OS where I setup every device myself and only the drivers it needs. Nope. UNIX is a bunch of retards playing with copy/pasting driver configurations (and other shit, such as udev) from the internet until it "works", while not having the slightest clue how their hardware works. If they did, they'd just write their own OS because it would be faster than fucking with UNIX. To be explicit, I don't want any autoconfiguration or enterprise bullshit, I want to use only the code I need to make the OS run on my specific hardware. No UNIX does that, even LFS probably sucks for it (and even then you'd have to use all the generic infrastructure - aka bloat - which the drivers are built around), but why would you go through the trouble to setup such a proper configuration when the OS has nothing good about it in the first place. It's literally a bunch of shitty ABI and hacks around the terminal, mixed with retarded concepts like """hostnames""". makes sense that a UNIX LARPer watches TV and has been on cuckchan after 2006 Mason Long ifconfig not the iproute2 suite LARPs as an oldfag but somehow doesn't know what an absolute shitshow 8/tv/ is Nigger the video of /leftypol/'s tranny BO sucking off /tv/'s BO has floated around the internet for years now. You don't have to watch talmudvision to know /tv/ is complete trash. Robert Scott Will the mods finally enforce the rules and ban this retard? Neither of those posts relate to the threads they were made in. There wasn't even an attempt to be relevant. Parker Cook being so assmad about a single poster you make a thread purely to whine about him and bump it every other day complaining about specific posts lmoaing @ u're lyfe OP Jordan Roberts Sure. John Nelson Desperate. Joseph Bailey UNIX braindamage is why we have to go through the insufferable thought process of considering whether the computer will crash each time we type a """special""" character, such as any of [code] [email protected]#$%^&*()_+-={}[]:";'<>?,./\|
[code]
or even Unicode points outside of ASCII.
When specifying a text search, I literally have to stop for a moment to think whether it will crash because I accidentally typed & instead of *. Is it a website? If it doesn't crash or break my user profile with invalid data, it will ban me for "hacking", because some smartass wrote a regex that "detects" "hacking attempts". Is it a file browser? Pcmanfm will literally crash if you change the file filter in a folder before it's done loading, so it's not unreasonable to worry about it crashing in the typical edge case of entering something that so happens to be a metacharacter in some stupid fucking UNIX language.

Robert Phillips

Also it's funny that the youtube-dl manual has to tell users how to use their terminal: Video URL contains an ampersand and I'm getting some strange output [1] 2839 or 'v' is not recognized as an internal or external command That's actually the output from your shell. Since ampersand is one of the special shell characters it's interpreted by the shell preventing you from passing the whole URL to youtube-dl. To disable your shell from interpreting the ampersands (or any other special characters) you have to either put the whole URL in quotes or escape them with a backslash (which approach will work depends on your shell). For example if your URL is youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc you should end up with following command: youtube-dl 'youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc' or youtube-dl youtube.com/watch?t=4\&v=BaW_jenozKc For Windows you have to use the double quotes: youtube-dl "youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc"
But that only fixes one case. The fact is, even UNIX LARPers who would know at least how to escape stuff properly (to some extent), are not safe.

You may be asking, why all this rant about a trivial issue? Because UNIX cannot even solve trivial issues. Do you think it does better at harder problems for some reason? No. In practice you just stumble across trivial issues like this every minute and use the standard workarounds and "best practices" and hope it works (and obviously it doesn't, since your product receives a constant stream of CVEs and your "engineers" are doing stupid shit like pasting stuff from the web to their terminals).

Isaac Jackson

mfw get cucked by UNIX braindamage while ranting about UNIX braindamage. dunno how you can escape double ' on this website so have it in code blocks:
you now have to surround it with '' or escape the & or some other bullshit. But if you forget to do this or don't notice the URL had an &, not only will it fail to download the video, but it will set the variable x to 1234. Does putting '' around every URL solve this?

Evan Perry

based

based
You may be asking, why all this rant about a trivial issue? Because UNIX cannot even solve trivial issues. Do you think it does better at harder problems for some reason? No. In practice you just stumble across trivial issues like this every minute and use the standard workarounds and "best practices" and hope it works (and obviously it doesn't, since your product receives a constant stream of CVEs and your "engineers" are doing stupid shit like pasting stuff from the web to their terminals).
This right here is so based that it hurts.

based

Gabriel Gutierrez

C is shit, Unix philosophy is stupid and your butt is hurt.

Brody Cruz

I'm not an Eunuchs weenie, and yes, the issue you brought up is annoying, but how would you solve it then?

Jayden Richardson

Here's an idea that a 5 year old would have thought of if he didn't get converted to UNIX religion at birth:
given some non-UNIX OS, the console has some command typed in it, like:[get video] [ ]the GUI puts boxes around shit to mark two different strings. yes strings can have spaces in this system, and we don't need to fuck with quotes
you click on the second box
it goes into edit mode
you hit ctrl+v to paste a link you copied from the web browser
you hit enter
it exits edit mode
also, since this is a non-gay shell and non-gay OS, you can't put $or some stupid metacharacter in the string and fuck up your console. no matter what is in the string, it's just a string Jose Ortiz oy vey the shell uses ASCII characters for stuff why doesn't it magically detect when I forget what special characters do? I shouldn't have to quote the url or escape it should use square brackets instead because that would change everything nevermind that your solution still doesn't differentiate between commands and strings, so all you've done is recreate the same situation with more typing fucking weenies and brain damage Learn your fucking shell, newfag. If you really don't like Bash understandably, install a different one. Attached: moron.png (52.25 KB, 248x209) Angel Harris is weeb is retarded Gas all weebs. Juan Anderson but they're boxes, not square brackets Either way, enjoy your gay fill-in-the-boxes shell with extra typing and no actual fixes unless you throw out metacharacters in a fit of autistic rage. As you choke on your terminal's plump, metacharacter-free cock you can comfort yourself with the reminder that even if you're a flaming faggot, at least you aren't a weenie. Owen Powell Either you stop being retarded and simply quote your stuff, or you replace sh with something better like tclsh. comparing interactive and non interactive interfaces like they're the same Please kill yourself. Isaac Ramirez it should use square brackets instead because that would change everything nevermind that your solution still doesn't differentiate between commands and strings, so all you've done is recreate the same situation with more typing No, it solves the problem perfectly. Those aren't square brackets in text, they are rectangles drawn around the strings so you can see which string is which. No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command. If you want to change the argument count you could have a hotkey like ctrl+a to add a new box and ctrl+d to remove one. This is all just an example to show how the problem could be solved in a way that even a 5 year old could have came up with if he didn't smoke UNIX. Luis Cook Either you stop being retarded and simply quote your stuff, or you replace sh with something better like tclsh. No, this is a fundamental problem with shitty little UNIX languages. It only gets worse when you try to actually compose anything. Why would you want an underpowered piece of shit language, yet still it doesn't allow you to simply paste a string? Also you failed to understand the problem since you think metacharacters and whatever other abyssmal UNIX braindamage can sneak into your string can be fixed with simple quoting or visual inspection. As already mentioned, even if you quote your string and pretend metacharacters and shit don't exist, you still have to read over the entire string to make sure it doesn't have ' inside it (or 10 million other characters such as$ if you're using ").
comparing interactive and non interactive interfaces like they're the same
What the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about an interactive interface here. You get to type a command and add argument boxes.

Evan Perez

I'm not the LISP-weenie or whatever weenie you're talking about. The shell should be SML and have proper support for strings and shit. Which means it's just as powerful as SML (instead of some gay shell script that can barely manage to implement if) but has some keyboard controls to enter strings and other various data structures.

Either way, enjoy your gay fill-in-the-boxes shell with
extra typing
no, you can reduce this to a simple keystroke or two, and it saves you from having to care about malicious input
and no actual fixes
it saves you from having to look over the string to see if it's going to fuck your terminal, and also from malicious input. entering strings in the bash or python shell was always tedious anyway and it's literally faster to open up a text file and paste it in there and load that to a variable as a string (which is a lot of typing, no matter how many macros and hacks you use)
unless you throw out metacharacters in a fit of autistic rage.
what?

Ian Anderson

No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command
It's almost like you're forgetting the shell is a fucking scripting language and not a simple program launcher-
If you want to change the argument count you could have a hotkey like ctrl+a to add a new box and ctrl+d to remove one
Have you even thought of how you'd distinguish argument boxes from string boxes? All you've done is recreate a babby version of "just put quotes around your string you fucking idiot" except now there's blocks and extra keypresses around the arguments too. All this retarded complexity because you're too stupid to use quotes and are so fucking new you haven't encountered a situation where metacharacters are useful.
Throwing out buzzwords like braindamage and weenie doesn't magically give your views wisdom or weight. Lurk moar.

Michael Sullivan

No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command.
Some shells do roughly what your asking for. They use colors to denote how parts are interpreted. They detect when your pasting (relies on terminal) and prevent you from doing certain things. The latter point always pisses me off. I know what I'm doing, I pasted it completely intentionally, because I want to run the command or whatever.
This is all just an example to show how the problem could be solved in a way that even a 5 year old could have came up with if he didn't smoke UNIX.
Go implement it yourself fag. The way UNIX is set up, very few things are implemented at a level so low that you can't change them. What your saying is simple enough that it would be a couple of hours of coding to get a basic PoC, assuming one doesn't exist. No one's uses them because it ends up being easier to learn how your tools work then it is to constantly fight with them.

it saves you from having to care about malicious input
Wouldn't save me shit, because I don't worry about someone trying to hack me with malicious copy-pasted commands. I download scripts and execute them without reading the entire source code more frequently then I copy paste, and if someone hacked me with those I wouldn't immediately see that they're trying to hack me.

Henry Cox

What your saying is simple enough that it would be a couple of hours of coding to get a basic PoC
So you're saying I can code my personal nigger? Fucking finally.

Ian Williams

It's hilarious to observe the braindamage on display in the posts of the UNIX weenies defending the UNIX retardation that is "let's just use strings for everything".
Please keep it up, I'm _literally_ ROFLOLMFAOing on my floor right now because laughing my fucking ass off.

Joseph Price

I don't get it
why do people use a common datatype when convenient instead of six million custom binary formats with their own tools?

Attached: i-want-to-work-in-videogames.jpg (49.53 KB, 474x640)

Jaxson Foster

but muh compatibility
My dick is compatible with your asshole. Shall I put it in?

Luis Gray

Your dick is also compatible with a woman's mouth, tits, and thighs. Do you really want some highly specialized penis that only fits into a highly specialized vagina so you can't possibly use it for anything else?

Jaxon Watson

My penis is also compatible with a meat grinder.

Jonathan Rogers

If you're that afraid of meat grinders, trade your dick in for a vagina, a cloaca, or a chastity belt. You'll loose your manhood and flexibility in the process but I doubt you care.

Attached: 1459549408957-0.jpg (106.99 KB, 824x719)

Luke Cooper

Do the world a favour and stick it in there

Parker Morris

Jayden Barnes

Look bucko, there are exactly two choices: Unix, and literally the most ineffectual thing I can come up with
The only reason you constantly have to deal with serialization in your OS is the Unix retardation of "everything is a byte stream". This is so similar to the story of every Perl programmer it's painful. Your "tool" keeps causing problems that you then half-assedly "fix" with it, and not only do you not notice this, you love the "tool" for helping you with all the problems you wouldn't have otherwise!

and literally the most ineffectual thing I can come up with
I wish, but that's often what people end up promoting.
muh serialization
Is it any wonder that a multi-user OS most frequently used as a web server is a little too fond of serialization?

Asher Jackson

The serialization bullshit has nothing to do with security or being multi-user and everything with there being literally no safe way to share objects on Unix.

Isaiah Flores

Which admittedly makes the previous "only" a bit of hyperbole, but the problems flow from there; not only is the stream idiocy so deeply anchored into the system that it's impossible to remove, it's also "good enough" (for a very bad value of good) that people will not look for alternatives.

Justin White

serialization is an OS problem
See Tcl, since everything has a unique string representation all the time, you just have to write to/read from files to serialize. If you want to force your object bullshit on the whole world, good for you, but don't come crying if others aren't doing it for you.

Levi Hill

Stop patternmatching "object" to "Java" and try thinking instead. Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?

Landon Clark

Stop patternmatching "object" to "Java"
I thought the same thing, it's so common. Why do Eunuchs weenies think OO = Java?

Nicholas Martinez

Because they are LARPers that can't program. They only know the memes.

Liam Hughes

Stop strawmanning hard, it makes you look even more retarded than you are. The problem is that it seems that the Lisp good goyim are talking about a monolithic and kind of "don't care about compatibility" solution to the problem: something like emacs's eshell.
Fine if you want to live in your bubble without any competition, but I'd say a standard format to replace both protobuf/bencode and *ml/json is the best solution.
UNIX took the contrary approach and used the least common denominator to get maximum compatibility abd simplicity: the byte. I'm kind of against it, especially when ASCII gave use 3-4 separator characters just for that; anybody who has explored (secure) POSIX sh as much as I will understand the pain of having no interchange tabular format (and the POSIX tard not standardazing the NUL record separator, at least).

tl;dr fuck off with your ivory tower Lisp intellectualism, just use ASCII 28-31 like they're supposed to be used

Blake Price

My condolences, user. Living with braindamage must be hard.

Samuel Green

Lisp good goyim
But Lisp is made by Jews, for Jews.

Joseph Kelly

This "compatibility" is completely illusory; you still rely on the exact kind of output the program shits out, whether it's a custom format (aka "plain text"), JSON or whatever the fuck. In the Unix world you get the big bonus that 99.99% of things don't even fully parse it correctly and just kinda do a halfassed job. Underspecifying your format doesn't make the actual format disappear, it just makes the format annoying to deal with. You are still just programming against an API, but once you make that part explicit, you can actually work with it.

I'll ask the question again since you didn't answer it: Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?

They never saw anything else and hating Java is understandable, not to mention the cool thing. Of course most retards then move on to praise C++, having learned nothing.

Cameron Garcia

Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?
Not in any other setting than the default shell, where the simplest possible API (string argument array + environment + stdin -> binary -> stdout + stderr + exit status) is the goal to be language and program agnostic.
Note that I advocate replacing sh with tclsh, but I still understand the philosophy behind sh. The problem with UNIX is more in the implementation and "side" ideas than core ideas, as Plan9 showed.

Lucas Barnes

as Plan9 showed
Plan9 is unusable shit.

Joseph Butler

This interface is language and program agnostic in the same exact way C is portable, i.e. by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack, resulting in ten million variations on the same basic thing. Basic things such as named arguments, the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!). The exit status is another example of a hilariously terrible interface that I seriously hope I don't have to explain. It's only simple in the sense that the system implementer can be lazy.

This situation is then rationalized to an "advantage", to "flexibility", but your own experiments in trying to replace the shell will have shown you why this basically amounts to writing your own (better) system (unless of course you just want to replace your "program launcher", but guess what, you could do this on top of a more useful interface too, and even in ways that are substantially different rather than a paintjob). Because the OS facilities are too shit to actually specify anything, everything relies on informal interfaces that you either have to replace or painfully emulate.

Pretending the structure isn't there doesn't make it disappear.

Caleb Sanchez

based

Evan Davis

by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack
That is a fucking non-argument and you should fuck right off with shit like that.
Basic things such as named arguments, the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!)
Especially with stuff like that.
in trying to replace the shell
Replace shell with what? If it's anything other than shell, we're not really coding for UNIX environment at all. Also if you need IPC, Unix has sockets or whatever, I don't really know what you're getting at here.

Anthony Rivera

Back when I was in the German equivalent of what Americans call high school, we had a thing called "Sozialpraktikum" (literal translation: social internship). We had to intern for 2 weeks at a hospital/nursing home/special school/homeless shelter/etc.
I chose to go to a mental hospital. Shit was just like in movies: Padded cells, crazy motherfucker in straight jackets mumbling batshit crazy stuff and so on.
The most fascinating thing was that most of the really crazy ones didn't even realize that they were crazy. You remind me of them. You have braindamage and don't realize it. Seek help.

Nathan Diaz

fuck you unix da bes
wow sure showed me

Sebastian Hughes

Plan 9 was good tho

But user, he's right. You shouln't try to act superior to people, it's unbecoming.

Ryan Morales

This interface is language and program agnostic in the same exact way C is portable, i.e. by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack
Where didn't you get the bit about simplicity and agnosticity? And why do you think portability is compatbile with your "passing CLisp objects around" idea? You might really be the original Lispfag, with your lack of argument wrapped in truisms.
Basic things such as named arguments
Should be handled by the executable.
the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!)
It is bad, but I'm waiting for something better from you. Having long options from the beginning would have made it way better too.
This situation is then rationalized to an "advantage", to "flexibility"
Are you implying that this wasn't the goal from the beginning? Flexibility/simplicity over ease of use?
but your own experiments in trying to replace the shell will have shown you why this basically amounts to writing your own (better) system
That is a lot more complex and monolithic. As I said, I don't really endorse sh, but I understand the rationale behind it.
Because the OS facilities are too shit to actually specify anything, everything relies on informal interfaces that you either have to replace or painfully emulate.
getopt(3) and getopts(1) are standard, you know.

Now, show me that all of these problems aren't just technical bagguage. And please don't do it by showing me your retarded Lisp machines needing special hardware to not be slow as molass because GC is the most retarded and lazy idea ever and dynamic typing is almost as idiotic. You know why UNIX was adopted? Because as shitty and barebone it was, it was still miles ahead the Entreprise (tm) tier like PL/I and Multics that are the equivalent of modern web browser in term of code bloat and complexity.
I'm pretty sure all the Lisptards don't know how complex and hideous a performant and portable GC implementation is.

Josiah Walker

hurp durp brain damage
Really creative, didn't hear that one before lol

Hint: you should try harder to convince somebody that X sucks.
There's stuff I dislike about UNIX, but environment isn't really the problem.

Chase Howard

BTW is the UNIX hater also LISP fag?
Literally LOL
Lisp is unreadable untyped pile of garbage from 50s literally nobody uses and basically all LISP fucks are NEET basement dweller hobbyist whatevers.

Dylan Scott

unbased

double based

based

The only good thing about Plan9 is that nobody uses it.
unbased btw

double unbased

unbased

Brayden Cooper

unbased newfag

Easton Fisher

It is bad, but I'm waiting for something better from you. Having long options from the beginning would have made it way better too.
It really is not though. You don't have to parse shit in the most general case, period.
<b-but muh usability
The shit like "./myprogram d 0xea 1337 .06 whatever" is usable, you just need documentation.

Lucas Perry

STFU cocksucker.
No circlejerking allowed in this thread. It would be much better if you were able to post something "based" in your own terms.

Oliver Phillips

Let's drop the concept of data types too. So what if every program has to reimplement basic data types, it's much more simple and agnostic that way. Next we're dropping arithmetic other than addition, programs that want to multiply can just implement that themselves. Think of all the extra hardware our completely useless simple and agnostic system can run on now!
simultaneously argues that the named argument shit is (a) not a problem and working as intended™ (b) bad but i don't see you do better (c) fixed by a library (how agnostic!)
This is your brain on Unix.
Now, show me that all of these problems aren't just technical bagguage.
What does this even mean. You can ask that for almost all the phrases you keep repeating, but this one in particular is something else.
That is a lot more complex and monolithic.
Yeah because it actually does something rather than telling the user to reimplement shit the OS should be doing.
prove me wrong, but please don't actually use the thing that proves me wrong
Classic.

Isaac Cooper

It would be much better if you were able to post
something "based" in your own terms.
I do. I also "based" my own posts :^)
unbased btw

based

Zachary Murphy

Goddamit dude, you shouldn't be that fat. It's no fun.

Jayden Gomez

simultaneously argues that the named argument shit is (a) not a problem and working as intended™ (b) bad but i don't see you do better (c) fixed by a library (how agnostic!)
You are genuinely fucking retarded.
a) it works as intended, whether you like it or not
b) I don't agree with that user on that, but OO shit like PowerShell is even worse
c) not just any library; but C standard library LOL

Levi Baker

hurr durr objects means java right
You don't get to call anyone retarded.

unbased

based

.NET = Java?
Go to the nearest hobo hideout, suck all their dicks, cut your head off and ask them to shit down your throat (beforehand lol).
Though if you code in any OOP language at all, you are a fucking disgrace to humankind anyway.
Like, why do you even post, you fucking waste of human material. Absolute shithead fucking retard.

Sebastian Lewis

nice LARP, unbased faggot

Lisp is unreadable untyped pile of garbage from 50s literally nobody uses and basically all LISP fucks are NEET basement dweller hobbyist whatevers.
Swap "Lisp" with "C" and "50s" with "70s" and notice how accurate it sounds.

Jaxon Long

The OS, programming language, instruction set architecture, that they have wasted so many years whoreshipping for no rational reason are shit
no rational reason
whoreshippers whoreship the whoreshipped. it's perfectly rational.
each whore will become effete, whoreshippers disuse the effete, move to the next hot young whore, who, having learned the lessons of the effete the easy way, will be hotter longer.
of course, since humans are forgetful assholes, we'll shag her no more than we shagged the hag, before disusing her as though she's just as effete as the hag was when we disused her.
it's not that the new hotter whore is really as effete, but we don't care. we demand cheaper hotter younger whores. be glad it's not your daughter.
...
this sort controversy is just a sign that the current whore is nearing effetion. the controversy grows, tips to the new, by when the old guard grip their dying whore while, elsewhere, another whore is conceived, and has somehow managed to acrue a mass of paedophile whoreshippers who will follow her into next controversy, where they will leave to find a new conception, and are replaced by us forgetful assholes who aren't afflicted by that most nauseous perversion.

Nicholas Walker

add "nobody" with "everybody", "hobbyists" with "hobbyists and professionals alike", "untyped" with "statically typed", "unreadable" with "the one true language" and you might have a point

Tyler King

C
typed
lolno

implicit casting is the same as no typing
lol no

Jaxson Harris

Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to base the entire user interface of the OS around non-computer device which hasn't existed since some decades before 1990? Nobody, of course. It's just another pile of hacks inherited from UNIX.

So today I was typing some stuff into the Python shell:>>> runlengths(cycle(908,256))<generator object runlengths at 0x7fe314f14570>>>> list(runlengths(cycle(908,256)))[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 0]

Then I surrounded the line with 'x for x in ' and 'if x not in [4,5]' and then typed a final ] to end the list comprehension, and ctrl+A to go back to the start of line so I can add the '[' to the start. But oh wait, today for whatever the fuck reason (not limited to the following possible causes: at some point, a metacharacter got printed to the terminal, or there's some hotkey I don't know about that I accidentally pressed which triggers some undocumented mode or causes some metacharacter or part of an escape squence to be printed, yet another shitty terminal emulator has a bug, etc), it's in some mode where ctrl+A doesn't work:>>> x for x in list(runlengths(cycle(908,256))) if x not in [4,5]] File "<stdin>", line 1 x for x in list(runlengths(cycle(908,256))) if x not in [4,5]] ^SyntaxError: invalid syntax
Then I hit up arrow / enter to retry the command or something, I don't remember:>>> x for x in list(runlengths(cycle(908,256))) if x not in [4,5]]^A[ File "<stdin>", line 1 x for x in list(runlengths(cycle(908,256))) if x not in [4,5]]{}[ ^SyntaxError: invalid syntax
The terminal displayed a unicode missing character box with for code point 1 (denoted by {} above, it probably wont work to paste it here due to UNIX braindamage, and I can't post images over Tor, yet again due to UNIX braindamage).

So as I'm typing ]{ctrl+A}]{return}, I'm still skimming over the list of 4, 5, 4, 5, etc with my eyes and then look down and see a stack trace instead of [0], thinking, "why the fuck cunt". No, I did not type ctrl+V+ctrl+A, I don't actually know why it output a ^A above. Yes I could have just looked over the entire list by eye, but I'm tired and shit and wanted to make sure it doesn't have a 3 or some shit in it, don't ask, point is, typing code should just work, not interrupt up with some insane mode triggered by some obscure metacharacter or escape sequence.

This is just a typical example of your day on UNIX brain. Now I know this board is full of americunts^Wredditors, and one of you will say, "w-well, why didn't you just type filter(lambda x: x not in [4,5],runlengths(cycle(908,256)))?" or "why didn't you just start off the line with [ instead of going back and fourth", followed by "see, there is no problem with UNIX". Well the only good response to that will be "kill yourself".

Zachary Thompson

user fucks everything up
can't stop pressing the wrong buttons
previously admitted he doesn't know his own shell and can't be assed to learn it
blames everything on UNIX braindamage
even blames Zig Forums not letting torposters post images on UINIX braindamage
I can't tell if this is well-crafted satire or you're actually this stupid, and it's cracking me up. Thanks for the morning kek.

Attached: 1366675236800.jpg (90.58 KB, 440x440)

Austin Lee

who are you quoting?

Ian Gonzalez

The first paragraph is based. I have no idea what you are talking about in the others.

Kevin Allen

bytes
no XML/json
what the fuck nigger, theyre' both shit. just use a fucking prefix tree and output the optimal binary representation of your SML or Haskell or whatever types. this isn't even an open problem, it's already solved. I'm sure there's an equally elegant way to do this shit in LISP as well.
baste and redpilled
what the fuck faggot you're using a shell which has just as much automatic memory management as any other PL, the only difference is that it's complete shit.
I'm pretty sure all the Lisptards don't know how complex and hideous a performant and portable GC implementation is.
Nothing written in C _right now_ is performant you shitfuck. Bad performance has nothing to do with memory management and everything to do with the fact that the software industry is garbage.

Gabriel Wilson

Refer to the last paragraph as you've already been inb4'd.
Now:
can't stop pressing the wrong buttons
That's the point, I decided to go back and put a [ at the start of my code and the shell said "nope fuck you". Why? Does any real software do this? No, only the retarded terminal emulator. Also, you can't even explain why this happened no matter how hard you tried. 99.99% of UNIX LARPers who use Linux don't even know how to find the documentation or code implementing metacharacter handling and modes in the huge stack behind the terminal.
even blames Zig Forums not letting torposters post images on UINIX braindamage
The idea of domain names as countries and properties, and IP addresses as anything other than an implementation detail, is the epitome of UNIX braindamage.

Dominic Peterson

press escape
press a control sequence
the control sequence is escaped
go online and complain about a dead research os from the sixties
how can I make it look like someone is shouting "unix" in anger? Caps don't work because I just look like one of the fags that capitalizes non acronyms.

Tyler Jenkins

unbased

Kevin Turner

The whole web is the epitome of worse is better style hacks built on hacks. So what does the "right thing" alternative have to say on the subject?
3. Every user is uniquely and securely identified
Oh huh. Tor is banned completely.

Carson Sullivan

ascii is unbased
Figures. What's the not-lisp-but-also-not-unix fags preferred encoding?

Isaiah Sanders

who are you quoting?
unbased btw

Caleb Cook

You mean anything that descends from UNIX?
press escape
press a control sequence
the control sequence is escaped
What's your point? This is a fucking terrible UI. Now you're going to claim I'm too stupid to use it doesn't have a single virtue.
The web is just UNIX braindamage as a platform.
Hes' talking about escape bullshit being unbased, but ASCII is unbased too.
what is your preferred character encoding
typical UNIX retard. the way to do characters is to send a 10x10 bitmap over the channel, and the logical engineering that follows (mapping them to short codes in the background - no this is not the same as what retarded shit UNIX does, font systems, search, collation, etc).
want to send the letter A? draw it in 10x10 black and white and send those 10x10 bits. Don't want to draw all the letters and map them to keys? Download a library. Two people drew the same A? Who cares, eventually everyone will have almost the same set of characters and it will be in the same situation as Unicode (10 different things that look like A) but without bloat and comittee

Dylan Barnes

s/use it doesn't/use it though it doesn't/

William James

the way to do characters is to send a 10x10 bitmap
Is this a joke? I can't tell.
unbased if serious
unicode is bloat
unbased

Ryder Wright

the way to send text is to send an 8-bit number between 20 and 127
sorry any pair of people that includes one who doesn't speak english
IS THIS A JOKE?!?!?!!?
cant tell if serious

Hunter Hill

who are you quoting?
unbased btw

Sebastian Cruz

press escape
press a control sequence
the control sequence is escaped
this is a terrible UI
How would you escape control sequences?
don't
have fun entering them then
backslashes
why tf should backslash mean escape, and not escape? This is your mind on unix, for all that phrase means
the way to do characters is to send a 10x10 bitmap over the channel
What? No markov chain this time? I feel cheated.

Jacob Hughes

escape sequences
unbased

Owen Thomas

GPL is revocable.

Bentley Bennett

do bitmaps and map some of them to short codes
hurrrf durrf u want TO SEND DA BITMAPs?!?!?!
I don't even think that's a good idea, but holy shit the reading comprehension on this board.

liking unicode
I too enjoy retarded amounts of bureaucratic complexity that are impossible to use correctly in one of the most fundamental standards.

Andrew Garcia

hurr durr i'm retarded
unicode is too hard for me to understand
lol
unbased btw

Thomas White

If not unicode how would you do it? Is there a way to do languages without the bureaucracy but also without having to deal with everyone having a different way of doing it and ending up with hacks instead of standards?

Xavier Nelson

Why are you so against multiple encodings? They are not any more annoying to handle than Unicode is. The reason you (may) think Unicode is not a pain in the ass is because you don't actually handle Unicode correctly. The standards are batshit insane, try reading them sometime.

Easton Wright

Strangely topically, this also applies to a lot of Unix shit.
$UNIX_BRAINDAMAGE is simple and very convenient because I conveniently ignore all the problems with it Colton Reyes because i can still remember when people used multiple encodings on irc. its nice that every sane person uses utf8 now instead of something random that will look weird if you too arent using it. Juan Hernandez I'm too stupid to understand Unicode so you must be too you be trippin, nigga How about you tell me what you can't understand and I'll help you understand it? unbased btw Lucas Kelly How do you handle multiple arbitrary encodings on the same document? What you're advocating means practically only one language per document. Zachary Scott escaping is the same as an escape sequence unbased btw this is what "escape sequences" are for. Try using escaping to solve this, I'll wait. Ryan Hall every unix hater I've ever met was either gay, a woman, a nigger or a pajeet. Only white men have standards. David Gomez Every Unix hater I've ever met were straight white men. Only non-white people have standards. Carson Wilson no replies lol based unbased unbased based Carson Watson HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Sebastian Gonzalez HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Daniel Richardson HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Noah Ross HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Hudson Cruz HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Sebastian Cooper HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Luis Thompson HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Hudson Lee HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Julian Jenkins HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Ian Kelly HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES Gavin Sullivan LOL, I wish I thought of doing that! Mason Wood A lot of these posts seem to be automated! Isaiah Nelson Holy shit, the Masonic influence here is glowing. Isaiah Collins this is the only correct disposition well UNIX is too hard for me to "understand" (or using proper terminology: engineer working conformant, portable, backwards compatible, future proof, secure code for) so Unicode certainly is as well just send bitmaps and have the program (a library embedded in your chat program, for instance) interactively map them to short codes to save bandwidth its' nice that every sane person uses a piece of shit that freezes your program for a good 10 seconds the moment a chinese character appears on screen Hunter Fisher UNIX braindamage is why I leave my text editor with a weight on top a keyboard button and come back to see it frozen Ethan Smith PDF, postscript, ghostscript, whatever the fuck are fucking terrible. Why do you need to execute some stupid stack based language to output some text with the same format as the previous 5000000 shitty academic PDFs? Why do I want a fucking document that's computationally expensive to view? Why the fuck do I want to emulate a physical book and have a giant break with headers, footers, page numbers, etc, between what I'm reading every minute? Sounds like UNIX braindamage to me. Literally a plain HTML page with no JS or CSS is better (although I conceed that the entire web is UNIX braindamage), for example: longpoke.github.io And thanks to UNIX braindamage, there's no easy way to sort PDFs (or music, or documents in general, or photos, or anything) without some specialized software, because they all have bullshit filenames and UNIX doesn't support tags or anything sane (inb4 some shitty filesystem extension). Encoding a new system of identifiers on top of file names, such as doi:x.y.z.whatever is just typical UNIX braindamage. Now you have 10 retarded broken (and typically centralized) systems on top of the original broken file system of UNIX. Literally anything you try to implement to sovle this will be a buggy piece of shit because nothing in UNIX composes. Merely opening a file will take days to implement (as you'll have to browse at least open(2), Xuid(2) Xeuid(2), Xreuid(2) fcntl(2), utf-8(7), unicode(7), locale(7), time(7), and environ(7), as well as implement some half working bullshit to scrub metacharacters if the system will output strings to a terminal instead of real GUI), either that or it will have 10 RCEs before becoming "stable". Henry Reyes blaming Unix for PDF and PostScript Those are from some ex-Xerox PARC guys and 1980s Apple. The idea was that your machine would send PS code to a laser printer, which would execute said code and generate a rasterized image at the printer's native resolution using a beefy processor. Adobe later built a mountain of ducttape over their language designed for printing vector graphics and text, then called it PDF. Why do people still use PDF? Mostly because Adobefags, Macfags, and Windowsfags are too retarded and stubborn to try anything else. You can ease the pain a little by installing a document reader that uses MuPDF instead of Poppler. Literally a plain HTML page with no JS or CSS is better Minus the "no CSS" bit, that's basically EPUB. And thanks to UNIX braindamage, there's no easy way to sort PDFs (or music, or documents in general, or photos, or anything) without some specialized software, because they all have bullshit filenames and UNIX doesn't support tags or anything sane (inb4 some shitty filesystem extension) They're called folders. You should try using them sometime instead of dumping everything into one spot and screaming that the world doesn't organize everything for you. The first origin of the Acrobat idea occurred in 1985, just before theApple LaserWriter was announced. Steve Jobs wanted samples thathe could print on stage when he announced the LaserWriter. I wasreally the only PostScript programmer at that time (I did all theillustrations in the PostScript Manual). So I was given the job. Ifound an old 1040 tax form from 1979, and laboriously duplicatedit by writing code (subroutines) that would help make theproduction of the tax form possible. When I showed it to Steve, heloved it and wanted it to be one of the examples he would print onstage. Unfortunately, when he found out that it took 2.5 minutes toprint, he killed the idea. I thought about it. The tax form code wascomputing-intensive. I then had the idea that I would build a smallpiece of code that would re-define all the PostScript graphicsoperators. For instance: “moveto” was redefined so that 100 100moveto would write: “100 100 moveto” to a text file. In other words,each graphics operator, instead of executing, would write its inputparameters plus its own name to a text file. The resulting file wouldunwind all loops, resolve all conditionals, and basically only containthe resulting graphics commands that would mark the page. I calledthis little program Graphbind.ps. This program was the first instanceof what we now call “Acrobat Distiller”. When I sent the tax formthrough Graphbind.ps, the resulting PostScript code was longer, butaccurately reproduced the page and executed in 22 seconds. Stevewas thrilled, and put the example in the LaserWriter announcement. Connor Gomez based Christopher Gomez Why do people still use PDF? For mathematics publishing, there isn't any substitute. Luke Rogers Bullshit. PDF is utter garbage. You literally can't say _anything_ positive about it. Prove me wrong. w3.org/Math/ Leo Adams And more importantly, if someone invented one normalfags would bitch about their web browser or Adobe Reader not opening it. There's a good chance only Unixfags would use it. You literally can't say _anything_ positive about it. Prove me wrong. At least it isn't MathML. Imagine having to write this shit just so a brain-damaged web browser could render the quadratic formula: <math mode="display" xmlns="w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mfrac> <mrow> <mo form="prefix">&#x2212;<!-- − --></mo> <mi>b</mi> <mo>&#x00B1;<!-- &PlusMinus; --></mo> <msqrt> <msup> <mi>b</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> <mo>&#x2212;<!-- − --></mo> <mn>4</mn> <mo>&#x2062;<!-- &InvisibleTimes; --></mo> <mi>a</mi> <mo>&#x2062;<!-- &InvisibleTimes; --></mo> <mi>c</mi> </msqrt> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> <mo>&#x2062;<!-- &InvisibleTimes; --></mo> <mi>a</mi> </mrow> </mfrac> </mrow> <annotation encoding="TeX"> x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a} </annotation> <annotation encoding="StarMath 5.0"> x={-b plusminus sqrt {b^2 - 4 ac}} over {2 a} </annotation> </semantics></math> Levi Young At least it isn't MathML. Imagine having to write this shit just so a brain-damaged web browser could render the quadratic formula Imagine being thia fucking retarded. You don't write MathML. You write your shit in latex or some shitty GUI wysiwyg editor. Carson Young mathematics Mathematicians have braindamage btw. let's use single letter names instead of descriptive names for variables shit there aren't enough letters let's use letters from other languages too Math weenies deserve the pure braindamage that is PDF tbh. Juan Harris Nigger XML is a markup language that isn't efficient for typing, reading, or parsing. You know your markup language sucks when you write your shit in another language just to avoid it as long as possible, only for the final result to parse slowly anyways because it's XML. if it isn't verbose it's braindamaged Congratulations, you're the target audience for XML. Jackson Nelson hurr durr your stupid i have braindamage btw Nice strawmen you built there btw inb4 you're Carter Lopez They're called folders. You should try using them sometime instead of dumping everything into one spot t. UNIX braindamage good luck creating a single classification for everything ever and screaming that the world doesn't organize everything for you. no buddy that's not how it works literally using a script to embed your tex shit in an HTML document as images would be better than using PDF crying about single glyph variable names gfo reddit brainlet non-programmer Jason Gomez compare cancer with cancer user loses his mind folders UNIX braindamage Those are from Multics, faggot. Aiden Thomas UNIX braindamage is why people can remotely log into your database for no reason. Normally, when you want to add a component to your application, such as a database, or an image scaler, or whatever, this comes as a library. You just call functions within that library. This is how even the layman sees it. You want to add some functionality to your code, why should that come as a """server"""? Instead, in the UNIX braindamaged minds behind every SQL product ever made, you have an "SQL server". Instead of calling sql_insert, you send a fucking string representing a database query over a socket. What? And they don't even provide you with tools or even a formal grammer to construct these strings. How are you supposed to insert some data containing arbitrary strings? How do you escape that? Oh right, you don't. So we had something like 40 years of SQL injection vulnerabilities, which if you're lucky you avoided. Now I'm sure some idiot out there is thinking "all you had to do is escape them", or "all you had to do is use prepared statements". Well no, since they didn't provide any real mechanism to construct the AST, this problem will never be solved. For example in MySQL, after they moved to real_escape_string (because escape_string didn't work or something), certain unicode quotes would not be escaped by that function. And in the case of prepared statements, they don't always work either, as in, they insert some of the strings directly into the concrete syntax tree, once again leading to escaping vulns. Now on top of all this your retarded SQL shit thinks its some badass enterprise tech so instead of being a library, it opens a bunch of ports and executes code received by them. It has a shitty default password and 10 different ways for people from the outside to connect to it, possibly complicated by your UNIX distribution/OS. So instead of just "import SQL" "sql_insert(..)", you have to install and configure some bullshit server and follow some retard's guide on the internet on "how to secure GaySQL 2010", which hopefully tells you all the settings you need to set to make it so people can't login from remote (inb4 hurr durr just firewall and not care about local privilege escalation attacks and/or local network), then provision a "secure" password (instead any good admin will use a random number generator as a roundabout way of doing proper authentication, or use X.509 as an even more roundabout way of accomplishing this and a few other basic tasks). I'm not saying SQL shouldn't be able to be used as a separate server. On any non-UNIX braindamaged system, you could simply start it up on a server, and copy/paste a capability string (contains everything needed to connect to the server, authenticate to the server, and setup an encrypted session with keys that are guaranteed to be correct) from the server to the client, and that would guarantee that only they can talk to each other, not to mention save you from doing retarded UNIX shit like setting up a hostname or static IP address. Now imagine if an image scaler was a separate server. And you had to send your image as {R,G,B} tuples in ASCII. But oh wait it could have some special language like instead of writing 123 for R, you can write lowercase_variable_name, or you could embed run length coding to compress parts of the image. Oh and you can concatenate files from the server's disk like {0,0,0},{255,0,0},concat("/etc/passwd") (you think I'm making this shit up? every SQL server has some variant of this, and even WRITING files to disk). And you had to set it up with a password and what protocols you want it to use. I'm sure some UNIXtard is reading this and thinking this is a good idea. Adam Wilson just use sqlite. no servers needed then Logan Allen good luck creating a single classification for everything ever Are you expecting the operating system to classify and sort your files for your? How the OS is going to know your preferences and are these preferences also a good suit for everyone else? Using the filesystem hierarchy is simple way to organize data, if you need a more detailed form of sorting, better install a specifically designed software for your needs. So in short is better for the OS to be simple and provide the basic framework for a more task-oriented software, than it is to try to please everyone and end up being incredible complex for implementation and updating (to new hardware). Elijah Morales There are different applications for different purposes. The design requirements for a standalone desktop application will need different considerations to an application intended for highly reliable network services. While it's certain that you can use big name SQL servers in your desktop application, it's much more difficult to redesign SQLite to be a reliable application as a reliable networked database service. Hunter Thomas If the Unix hater fag spent half as much time writing his modern Lisp Machine clone / improvement as he did shitposting quotes from the Unix Hater’s Handbook he’d realize he was half way to making an emacs clone... Ethan Martinez based And they don't even provide you with tools or even a formal grammer to construct these strings. Applies to sqlite too. unbased btw Using the filesystem hierarchy is simple way to organize data, if you need a more detailed form of sorting, better install a specifically designed software for your needs. No shit, retard. That's his point. And thanks to UNIX braindamage, there's no easy way to sort PDFs (or music, or documents in general, or photos, or anything) without some specialized software, because they all have bullshit filenames and UNIX doesn't support tags or anything sane (inb4 some shitty filesystem extension) Once again the "simple" way is just UNIX niggers being lazy and braindamaged. Jayden Baker Why the fuck do I want to emulate a physical book and have a giant break with headers, footers, page numbers, etc, between what I'm reading every minute? Because it accurately represents the original material. Just scan the damn thing. It consistently works because it will be the same material. I just want a digital copy of the real physical thing. If some retard is fucking with it and deciding what should or shouldn't be there, then that's a problem. between what I'm reading every minute What the fuck are you even reading for that to happen every minute? There are a few pages like that. Deal with it, just press a fucking button that you will have to press hundreds of times anyway, and it's gone. It's easier than a real book. Why do people still use PDF? Because there is nothing wrong with it. It has always worked just fine. Adobe has always made shit software, but I have never had a problem with the format itself. I just don't use their software. If I can open a file and instantly have an entire book in front of me, then it's perfectly fine. And that's what happens. Even on my slower computers. I see no reason to complain about it. emacs clone Written in C, doesn't count. And it's not an actual operating system. But it would be funny to write an OS based on Lisp Machines and just do it in C. Kind of a waste of time compared to making Windows but light and good, but worth it just for the reaction. Nolan Carter Emacs is written in Emacs Lisp. William Sanders PDF is a garbage format. Regards, format knower. Written in C, doesn't count. Every time the goalposts go flying in challenges like this. "No, part of it is in C! No, the drivers are written in C! No, the hardware is a C machine, checkmate lispfags!" et cetera, et cetera. Aaron King Tell me more about the PDF format. Connor Gray It's too large and has way too many useless and questionable features such as function evaluation, embeddable 3D objects and Javascript (with a completely different API from the browser). They basically just slapped absolutely fucking everything on it. Uncharacteristically, the official specification is pretty readable, so check that out if you want something in detail. Use Djvu for document scans. Jordan Sullivan I want more than plain image scans. What I want is a document presentation format. Is there any other open format that is intended as a document presentation format? Jackson Ward Everything-I-don't-like-and-can't-do-better-is-Unix-brain-damage THE THREAD John Turner PS (postscript) is nice too. Jaxon Adams thread was literally started by a unix hater hater ??? William Nelson No, I'm expecting the OS to at least have a non-retarded system of tags, so instead of choosing to mark an article as both WORLD HISTORY and LINGUISTICS, I can choose both. if you need a more detailed form of sorting, better install a specifically designed software for your needs. You mean like a non-UNIX-braindamaged verison of SQL, or better yet a tagging system. So in short is better for the OS to be simple and provide the basic framework for a more task-oriented software, than it is to try to please everyone and end up being incredible complex for implementation and updating (to new hardware). This has nothing to do with hardware, you maroon. Filesystems are utterly useless (and all the real uses are fucked over by the non-composability of UNXI) and bloat in and of themselves in the first place. What the fuck are you even reading for that to happen every minute? HMM, let's see. OH a scan of a book! Or any technical document ever where standards organizations spam their retarded header and footer on every page. Literally worse than HTML. It's easier than a real book. No it fucking isn't. You have to scroll around like a retard with some broken ass laggy software. In the best case you fit the entire page to the screen and press the 'next page' button but then it's just as good as a book, no better (actually worse since it glows). embedded JS, etc this. you have to be fucking IN SANE to defend the PDF format. as a common joke among master racers such as myself, we talk about what the web would be like if it served PDF files instead of HTML we can and do better than UNIX and its ilk Nicholas Powell What the fuck are you even reading for that to happen every minute? Here you go faggot. [tor users cant post images XDDDDDDDDD] ibb.co/KhNwB9r ibb.co/nPyD1Z2 even reading a paragraph across retarded headers/footers is disruptive ibb.co/G5Lzfyq ibb.co/hBWKDsc It's easier than a real book. No it isn't. It has the exact same problem as a real book, on a computer, which was the whole point. Only a braindamaged UNIX retard would create (or defend) a document format with the same limitations of a physical book. inb4 hurr durr ur not smart cuz u used the AMD manual instead of Intel i would've downloaded the intel manual to save this discussion but the web and PDF are both too insufferable to bother Nicholas Nguyen No, I'm expecting the OS to at least have a non-retarded system of tags What are xattrs? Juan Mitchell Its a unix brain damaged retard's system of tags invented by the NSA who is infected with another form of braindamage. Try again Parker Scott Dennis Ritchie, co-creator of Unix, uses Windows how does that make you feel Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.07 MB, 1280x1024) Tyler Wilson It's impossible to deal with these people, every time you'll prove them wrong they'll simply move the goal-post and blame you for being incompetent or something. Check the presentation "Death of Reason", even if we prove then wrong over and over again this will only reinforce their own bias. They can't be reasoned with. Dennis Ritchie, co-creator of Unix, uses Windows how does that make you feel He's clearly using Drawterm to access a Plan 9 computer. Why he's using Windows NT 4? Maybe everyone else in the laboratory use a software only available to Windows? Who knows, go ask him. Easton Hernandez most screenshots are from people running Unix natively Dennis Ritchie uses Windows to connect to a remote Plan 9 CPU server FreeBSD's cofounder is a macfag id Software dev is a ricefag Slashdot cofounder is a weeb nip uses NetBSD No real surprises here. In both that screenshot and a later one at anders.unix.se/2015/12/10/screenshots-from-developers--2002-vs.-2015/Dennis Ritchie was doing the old-fashioned "remotely connect to your desired OS from whatever your terminal uses." It works even if it makes less sense on modern hardware, kind of a running theme on Unix. Daniel Bailey He ded Mason Harris we can and do better than UNIX and its ilk Unix isn't a monolith. If you could improve it, with some original application or protocol, then you could write said application or protocol for Unix. Stallman is a diehard lispfag, who spends all his time in an emacs console. Which OS did he base his system off of? Was it multics? ITS? No, it was Unix. This wasn't because he loved Unix, but because he was a pragmatist, who realised that there was nothing so objectionable about Unix to make it unusable as a base. Steve Jobs did the same thing with nextstep, which eventually became MacosX. Did he fall in love with making everything a file? Surely not, otherwise OsX would look very different. He recognized that Unix was a sufficiently complete and well designed system to use as a base. You too, if you weren't a disgusting larper, could built your system on top of Unix. If you did, you'd realize that everything that faggots here love to call "unix braindamage" is in fact a particular point on a tradeoff curve, falling somewhere between minimizing development time and maximizing usefulness. Nobody wants to make software that is buggy, poorly documented, and difficult to use, and yet every program for every system, no matter how tangentially related to Unix, ends up being like this. Not because Ken Thompson and friends declared it must be so 60 years ago, and the rest of us are now powerless but to execute his will, in a decades long refutation of "free-will". Instead, because the requirements were poorly stated, the deadline was too close, and most of the developers were fresh out of school. Or, in the case of free software, because the dev (singular, in many cases) treats it as a weekends and evenings project that he only does as a hobby, and so spends most of his time working on the fun parts, avoiding dealing with jackasses making half-asses bug reports and stupid feature requests as much as he can. If you really cared about fixing things, you would lend a hand to help. Again, not because the existing solutions are so great, but because they aren't particularly objectionable, and because whatever replacement you hacked together during your evenings and weekends would suffer the exact same issues, no matter how esoteric a dialect of lisp you decided to write it in. Alexander Thomas Unix isn't a monolith. braindamage. Easton Turner braindamage braindamage braindamage You MIT Lispers sure love your boomer-tier childish insults, eh? Oliver Jenkins complains about stupid insults uses boomer Eli Smith every system with a tangential link to unix is unix every userspace ever used on a unix system is unix every protocol used for interaction by unix programs is unix every bug, mistake and misfeature found in unix is part of the "unix philosophy" unix is a monolith braindamage. Jayden Peterson Attached: lol.jpg (12.72 KB, 357x233) Jackson Ortiz Unix isn't a monolith. Neither is any operating system. The problem is that all this bullshit in UNIX must be kept exactly as it is because there is no distinction between UI and ABI. To borrow someone else's post, UNIX treats all commands and human-readable text as an application binary interface. On non-UNIX systems, the output of commands is almost never parsed by programs. That's because these operating systems have APIs meant to be used by programmers and UIs meant to be used by users and keeps them separate. You can capture the output of commands, but it's a bad idea to parse it because it's intended for people to read and can change in newer OS versions. If you could improve it, with some original application or protocol, then you could write said application or protocol for Unix. That's exactly the problem. Instead of fixing things, people write an application for UNIX, which means they have to deal with all the UNIX bullshit. Fixing problems requires removing code. You can't fix problems by adding unrelated software to something that sucks. there was nothing so objectionable about Unix to make it unusable as a base. You're wrong. UNIX is unusable. Tens of thousands of programmers, millions of lines of code, and billions of dollars can't make UNIX as good as Multics was in the 60s. UNIX might be one of the most wasteful projects of all time. Even worse, the low quality of UNIX makes everything else more wasteful. All those years and billions of dollars wasted on fixing bugs that wouldn't even exist in Multics and PL/I. All those wasted hours of user time because of crashes and program freezes caused by buggy C/C++. Steve Jobs did the same thing with nextstep, which eventually became MacosX. Did he fall in love with making everything a file? Surely not, otherwise OsX would look very different. He recognized that Unix was a sufficiently complete and well designed system to use as a base. Steve Jobs chose UNIX for financial purposes. BSD was free, so he could use it without paying anyone. It's the same reason people use NPM, Electron, and all that other web (an offshoot of UNIX) garbage even though they suck. You too, if you weren't a disgusting larper, could built your system on top of Unix. If you did, you'd realize that everything that faggots here love to call "unix braindamage" is in fact a particular point on a tradeoff curve, falling somewhere between minimizing development time and maximizing usefulness. "Minimizing development time" is another way of saying using someone else's code, but you can use code that doesn't suck. Nobody wants to make software that is buggy, poorly documented, and difficult to use, and yet every program for every system, no matter how tangentially related to Unix, ends up being like this. Exactly, but it doesn't have to be like this. Avoiding UNIX can get rid of countless headaches and difficulties in programming that shouldn't even exist. Instead, because the requirements were poorly stated, the deadline was too close, and most of the developers were fresh out of school. Why didn't Multics have these problems? It's almost like we should be using software made by smart people instead of making excuses for dumb weenies who can't do anything right. If you really cared about fixing things, you would lend a hand to help. That's the opposite of what you should be doing. 15,600 people is enough for 1560 decent operating systems, 156 professional quality ones, or 15 complete rethinkings of computing. whatever replacement you hacked together during your evenings and weekends would suffer the exact same issues, no matter how esoteric a dialect of lisp you decided to write it in. Lisp code would have some bugs, but to say it would have the same issues as C and UNIX is completely false. >>The most productive programmers I have known here have>>only recently been introduced to UNIX (most think it's>>horrible).> > This anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Anyone who> changes environments will notice only the features missing> from their old environment, since the new and potentially> useful features aren't yet a part of their work patterns.> Thus, initial reactions to an environment change will> almost always be negative. No surprise here.Exactly. Which is why the part of my article that you _cut_is relevant here. The people I'm talking have used _many_different systems and have switched many times. They _know_what's involved in moving to a new system. They _have_learned a lot about the UNIX environment (in spite of onlyrecent exposure - for most systems, "recent" would bedefined as "the last few weeks", on UNIX the definition ismore like "the last year or so"; because UNIX is _MUCH_harder to come to speed on). The conclusion is that UNIXdoes _not_ have sufficient capability to offset thosefeatures it lacks. Mason Smith It's almost like we should be using software made by smart people instead of making excuses for dumb weenies who can't do anything right. Great idea! We'll have to avoid Multics because some Multicians created Unix, Lisp Machines as well because Richard Stallman and some fellow AI Lab alumni created GNU. Multicians and the AI Lab are forever tainted and we must abandon all their ideas for fear of being tainted by their wrongdoings. but you can't generalize an entire community of developers like that- pic related Attached: 1420885648354.png (404.4 KB, 878x842) Aaron Turner what is this post even trying to say Isaiah Bell If Multics was so great, why has no one bothered recreating it or improving on its design since the 60s? Attached: UNIX-conspiracy.jpg (76.23 KB, 363x380) Christopher Sanchez Ok, multicsfag. I'd like to jump ship and start using "software made by smart people". Where do I start? Jack Lee Christopher Scott Fixing problems requires removing code And removing code requires first achieving feature parity with existing code. Unix systems remove things all the time, like the way systemd has systemically replaced sysv. If you consider user needs themselves to be in need of replacement then you'll never remove anything. Steve Jobs chose UNIX for financial purposes. That's funny, because ten seconds ago, billions of dollars were being wasted on unix. UNIX is unusable. I am currently posting from a unix system. Checkmate "Minimizing development time" is another way of saying using someone else's code, but you can use code that doesn't suck Browser engines allow one to write uis that are responsive, render quickly, and can perform complex tasks like text reflowing and layout all using a declarative language. The code itself however both "sucks" and sucks, so I'm interested to hear there is a lisp alternative suitable to replace them. Repeat for databases, numerical analyses, and so on. Why didn't Multics have these problems? Multics is dead. Clearly there was an insumountable disconnect between what people wanted, and what multics delivered. It is very easy to deliver a software project on time, within budget, and completely bug free when you don't give a fuck about user requirements. 1560 decent operating systems Ten people couldn't build a single program that even compares to modern versions 156 professional operating systems 100 people could set aside ten years and recreate a single component of a modern os fit to replace it 15 complete rethinkings Where are you getting this army of highly skilled developers from, who could presumably command$100,000s per year from the likes of google, to set aside their best years recreating an operating system?
Lisp code would have some bugs
Naturally, but the issues are broader than that. Typically, you need correctness (bug free), completeness (feature parity), and performance. The first is easier in lisp, the latter is much harder in lisp, and the second is vastly easier when you aren't rewriting from scratch.

Noah Rogers

based

Use Rust and everything written in it.

unbased UNIX weenie spotted

Daniel Miller

That's funny, because ten seconds ago, billions of dollars were being wasted on unix.
I am currently posting from a unix system.
Not an argument.
Browser engines [...] responsive, render quickly
Simply epic.
Clearly there was an insumountable disconnect between what people wanted, and what multics delivered.
By that argument Windows is the best OS.
the latter is much harder in lisp
This hasn't been the case for decades now, but since current crop of programs fail the first test, this is irrelevant anyway.
I'm not even multicsfag, but try harder.

Ian Perez

based

William Brown

just because you use something, doesn't mean it's usable
right
Browser engines [...] responsive, render quickly
Even in general, but particularly for a declarative language. Responsive is referring to reflowing in response to window size changes.
By that argument Windows is the best OS.
I don't use windows, because it is not the best os for me. Presumably it fills some purpose for those who do use it. Yet even the multicsfag doesn't use multics.
This hasn't been the case for decades now
Performance will always be harder in lisp than in c.
since current crop of programs fail the first test, this is irrelevant anyway.
One speaks of a program being more or less correct, not in absolute terms. All three terms are important to varying degrees in varying contexts. A perfectly correct program is useless that is missing crucial features. A buggy program is useful that the bugs can be worked around, and that nothing better replaces it.

Julian Lewis

Responsive is referring to reflowing in response to window size changes.
We must be using different browsers, window size changes reflow obscenely slowly on mine. Thanks Mozilla.

Performance will always be harder in lisp than in c.
Relevant (i.e. observable) performance issues are the domain of very few situations nowadays, which Lisp allows you to hand-optimize. The supposed high performance of C is simply a result of doing less and taking a big fat shit on sanity.
Take a look at the image for a very simple example. If you restrict Lisp code to do about the same things, you get similar performance on implementations like SBCL (here even similar assembly). It gets even "better" if you accept the same type of retard behavior that is deemed acceptable in C (such as lack of overflow handling), but my point is exactly that this should not be done and is the cause of many problems you consider a fact of life.
Safety margins are an engineering principle for a good reason; the idea that a single flaw may irrecoverably nuke the application's internals (or worse in the case of exploits) is insanity, but what's even more insane is that people put up with it, defend it and even demand it. My usual phrase here is "Imagine if your house was built like that.", but now that I think about it that's basically what burgers are doing with their paper houses, so in a twisted sense it's at least consistent insanity.

One speaks of a program being more or less correct, not in absolute terms.
Only if one wants to shift the goalposts so that Unix wins by definition. This is exactly like a Perl programmer who claims that correct parsing is not possible and therefore the language must be optimized for approximations: Regex bullshit suddenly becomes the tool of choice and promptly destroys the ability to parse correctly. "See, I was right!"
Correctness is indeed unattainable if you spend most of your time microoptimizing irrelevant parts and hunting down bugs that a machine could find or prevent for you at negligible cost. So don't do that.

Logan Fisher

Codemonkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey

Attached: sbcl-disassemblies.png (17.46 KB, 671x693)

Aiden Harris

Thanks Mozilla.
Lol. Hasn't rust come and saved you yet?
The supposed high performance of C is simply a result of doing less
The real and observable high performance of c is in large part the result of making the relation between written code and executed binary clear and tangible. Knowledge of the method by which the lisp optimizer performs can give the apparition of c-like performance for certain toy-sized problems. Modify the program so it no longer pattern matches correctly and it quickly falls behind once more.
Only if one wants to shift the goalposts so that Unix wins by definition.
Lisp code would have some bugs
Those damn goalpost shifting lispfags, amirite?

Aaron Sullivan

entire post is deflection
wow big surprise

Jayden Foster

entire post is deflection
response is actually just deflection
way out of left field there

Julian Bailey

Same reason we don't have good things in general.

Brody Rogers

DID THIS NIGGER JUST TRY TO DELETE /BOOT WITHOUT ROOT & NOW IS CLAIMING THIS BULLSHIT?????

Gabriel Perry

rm is forever, so don't make a mistake
This is a feature in the eyes of Unix weenies. The most important properties to these people are heaps of dumb trivia to memorize and a lifetime supply of pitfalls to "cleverly" work around so they can demonstrate their "superiority". Everything else is secondary.

Jaxson Reyes

based

Nathan Kelly

Unix isn't a monolith. If you could improve it, with some original application or protocol, then you could write said application or protocol for Unix.
Why do I want to improve UNIX? None of my ideas are based off UNIX. There's literally not a single good idea in UNIX. I don't even have files/folders or "character encodings" (my text system is described in ), which is hardly even needed other than for labels so you don't forget which button does what, and for calling functions (but identifiers are optional. names are optionally assigned onto existing universially unique identifiers).
Again, not because the existing solutions are so great, but because they aren't particularly objectionable, and because whatever replacement you hacked together during your evenings and weekends would suffer the exact same issues, no matter how esoteric a dialect of lisp you decided to write it in.
No, they wouldn't.
My system has no name conflicts
My system has no injection vulns
My system has no RCE vulns
My system has no phishing (it has software that replaces web as well)
My system has no AUTOTOOLS
My system has no input latency
No UNIX system or anything remotely related to its ilk will ever be able to say the same. You don't understand the problems with UNIX.
On non-UNIX systems, the output of commands is almost never parsed by programs. That's because these operating systems have APIs meant to be used by programmers and UIs meant to be used by users and keeps them separate.
The problem is that all this bullshit in UNIX must be kept exactly as it is because there is no distinction between UI and ABI.
BASED
True, but don't think those OS are safe either. They still mostly use C ABI and even some retarded shit like XML (or recent fad JSON) encoded using C, often building the output XML by using string concatenation. These interfaces are literally still broken as fuck and all the reasons stem from UNIX braindamage.
Lisp code would have some bugs, but to say it would have the same issues as C and UNIX is completely false.
based, but SML master race (actually my non-textual dialect of it)
Great idea! We'll have to avoid Multics because some Multicians created Unix, Lisp Machines as well because Richard Stallman and some fellow AI Lab alumni created GNU. Multicians and the AI Lab are forever tainted and we must abandon all their ideas for fear of being tainted by their wrongdoings.
I agree.
[4 captchas were solved for this post]
perfect example of the current state of software industry. even a simple captcha is buggy and makes you re-solve it after correctly passing it. simple trivial bugs like this are not considered worth fixing

Blake Ross

And removing code requires first achieving feature parity with existing code. Unix systems remove things all the time, like the way systemd has systemically replaced sysv. If you consider user needs themselves to be in need of replacement then you'll never remove anything.
t. senior enterprise software developer
Browser engines allow one to write uis that are
responsive,
define responsive
render quickly,
No.???????????????
and can perform complex tasks like text reflowing and layout all using a declarative language.
Did you ever use fucking CSS? There is nothing "declarative language" about that shit. It's literally satisfying a constraint problem in terms of implementation details of 3 different proprietary browsers. I've written GUIs in HASKELL that are faster than any webshit ever made.
so I'm interested to hear there is a lisp alternative suitable to replace them. Repeat for databases, numerical analyses, and so on.
t. senior enterprise software developer
It is very easy to deliver a software project on time, within budget, and completely bug free when you don't give a fuck about user requirements.
t. senior enterprise software developer
just stfu you retarded boomer, you know you're full of shit when you keep claiming hypothetical replacements for UNIX would fail because "THEY DONT SATISFY USER REQUIREMENTS". every fucking argument you have is just copy/paste from the same retards I argue with every day
who could presumably command \$100,000s per year from the likes of google, to set aside their best years recreating an operating system?
t. senior enterprise software developer
holy fuckkk
Responsive is referring to reflowing in response to window size changes.
now you're a fucking zoomer because noone over 12 years old thinks this is a new feature. The "Responsive design" meme, which was a complete disaster like everything else related to webshit, has achieved absolutely nothing aside from websites breaking when you save them to read offline (because oh no a multi URL image i cant handle this edge case!!11)
Performance will always be harder in lisp than in c.
C HAS NO PERFORMANCE. THAT WOULD REQUIRE NON RETARD DEVS
C HAS NO PERFORMANCE. THAT WOULD REQUIRE NON RETARD DEVS
C HAS NO PERFORMANCE. THAT WOULD REQUIRE NON RETARD DEVS
I wrote an image viewer in a month that beats every single one ever made (such as feh,gwenview,sxiv,irfanview,faststone,windows' viewer. i tried 40 different viewers) in terms of speed for panning and image loading (merely calling libjpeg/libpng to load images). C has been written only by incompetent codemonkeys for the last 15 years. I had to write the scaling parts in assembly because C is too slow to make decent utilization of my hardware.

Isaiah Wright

wew. Did based UNIX hater get braindamaged?
Not sure whether based or not.

Grayson Barnes

The idea of piping came trying to automate telephone operators switching cables between circuits.

Unix (and all Unix like OS) is basically the backbone of the real world. It (and AS400) are what everything runs on. 99% of business. The Unix philosophy is unironically what allows the modern economy to exist.

Arguing against it and its methods not only shows hubris (a classic European trait) because you are somehow smarter than the smartest people on the planet, it shows ignorance. The people in this thread are not just dumb, they're dumb and arrogant. Many probably dislike it simply because its American tech

Jacob Parker

Henry Jackson

Mixing unixtarding with america stronk is a new one.

Carter Robinson

kys if not trolling. bump for best thread

Aaron Morales

Why does the Unix hater push Lisp so much? Is he a kike?

Noah Bailey

FIX UR SHIT RETARDS. TOR USERS SHOULDNT BE FORCED ONTO THE .ONION DOMAIN.
halfdog.net/Security/2012/TtyPushbackPrivilegeEscalation/
Look at this shit. This is completely a non-problem - UNIX invented it into itself. And it's funny because the moment you go on this piece of shit OS renowned for its user-based privilege seperation, you get slapped on the hand for using the most obvious privilege separation tool they provide, which doesn't work. Typing sudo instead before every command is fucking braindamage. And the satire doesn't even stop there. Su will now be another thing that the smarter of the neckbeards will tell you not to use "because it's insecure", having no idea themselves what's insecure about it.
It's also funny because in the 2000s I always had the feeling there's something insecure about using su (why wouldn't there be? this is UNIX after all. if everyone's using sudo then that means su is insecure. but don't get me wrong, sudo is insecure too), and opted to instead login through a different virtual console[1].
Even without this vuln, how do you tell if you're still the user dropped into? I'm guessing as usual there's no way. If you press ctrl+d, it might ignore it, change its shell to look like the previous user's shell, and then start logging all input, so if you then enter something secret, it will get it. Of course at some point you'd notice some commands aren't working. And this is where the retard sysadmins will say "always use a fresh shell when doing something sensitive", having no idea why they have such a belief. Also the user you su into could probably end the session somehow while you're typing and the commands go to your previous user. I'm not sure if the user you login to has control over ending the session, but I wouldn't take some idiot on the web's word for it. To be safe instead I'll just assume it's insecure. Again none of these problems exist or are even considerations outside of braindamaged UNIX. On top of all that, metacharacters are probably turing complete (especially in shit like gnome shell or anything outside of the simplified in-kernel version) so the user you login to can just make your shell behave however he wants even a year after you logged out.

1.
virtual console is also braindamaged as fuck and proves how UNIX makes the most trivial crap as retarded as possible. Go type john<enter>fuckyou<enter>. Will it log you in? You fucking bet not. Instead, you'll get some output like this:

localhost login: john <-- look at me everyone this is my host name. i am a big boy because i output my hostname whenever possible. my code breaks and doesnt work unless the hostname is configured because big boy business. this is UNIX i know this