What motivates you?

We can start with the Free Software Foundation.

Attached: A2F16DA5-3354-43B1-A332-A75F2D9D8B40.jpeg (738x1086, 129.59K)

We already have Libbie music videos.

You call that incoherent mash of unrelated historical clips a video about history?

Attached: 747588466.jpg (582x900, 53.15K)

What is that thing?

This is what defends midnight snacking on footjam as some great technological mind.

These redditor hipsters, or UNIX weenies as they are commonly known, can't tell AT&T marketing bullshit from real facts. What really sucks is that the UNIX weenies know it can't compare to Multics and other real operating systems, so UNIX schools don't teach anything about them anymore. UNIX sucks so much that even mentioning how a real OS does something makes UNIX look bad. UNIX shills can't say anything positive about UNIX besides the number of users and the fact that it conforms to all these "standards" that were created by the same companies that sell UNIX. The only thing they could say was that UNIX, an OS designed for multiple users logged in remotely at the same time, is slightly more secure than Windows 9x, designed for a single user who has full access to everything on the machine. They push UNIX clones for "Internet of Things" bullshit and single user computers because it completely sucks as a multi-user OS.

The ENIAC was an important advance in technology, unlike UNIX which held technology back half a century (and counting). Your post is a better analogy for these weenies who complain about Multics even though most of what they like about UNIX was already better in Multics 50 years ago.

Bullshit. Reddit is full of UNIX and C weenies. The lack of protected mode in DOS and other 80s computers/OSes convinced a lot of people that UNIX was stable and solid, when it's due to hardware. I trust DOS not crashing more than UNIX not crashing even though DOS has no MMU protection and UNIX does.

It's really sobering to think we live in a society that allows the people who design systems like xauth to vote, drive cars, own firearms and reproduce.I'm just graduating from business school*, and wasinterviewing with a consulting company that does full scaleanalysis, design, and implementation of informationtechnology systems for companies.My interviewer looked at me with a rather puzzled, sadexpression on his face, and asked mournfully: "We put moneyinto Unix. We put a LOT of money into Unix. *Why* isn't itany turning out to be any good for doing really usefulprojects?"We decided the answer was obvious.* [At business school, I've mainly learned that business is* set up about as sensibly as the X authorization file.* *Sigh* So much for $70,000.]

For reasons I'm ashamed to admit, I am taking an "Introto Un*x" course. (Partly to give me a reason to get back onthis list...) Last night the instructor stated "BeforeUn*x, no file system had a tree structure." I almostscreamed out "Bullshit!" but stopped myself just in time. I knew beforehand this guy definitely wasn't playingwith a full deck, but can any of the old-timers on this listplease tell me which OS was the first with a tree-structuredfile system? My guess is Multics, in the late '60s.

I can write words, then I can write more words. None of these words explain anything other than that I don't like your post.

Oh, no. Is that photoshopped? PLEASE tell me that's photoshopped.

Everyone has a forehead. I've heard of fiveheads Nigga, that's a sixhead. Maybe a sevenhead?

WHATWHYWHATWHYWHATWHYWHATWHYWHATWHYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spite.

W-what?

Are you one of these faggots who think macOS is Unix because of that funny cert?

Don't wait for motivation, just start working on something first thing in the morning.

During work?

The need to find new ways to be lazy.

I think that there is mainly one person who is posting all this
anti-unix stuff. And maybe about three other newfags that crudely
repeat his ideas. These people never seem to offer an alternative
to unix. Maybe they are actually suggesting that we don't use any
computers at all?

Unix has its problems, just like everything else. But so far I can't
find any other OS that I would rather use. Some strong features of
unix are:

1) Text interface - graphics are good for some things, but will
never be a full replacement for text.

2) Shell and pipes - being able to route data from program to program
allows you to format and process data in any way that you need or
want to. If this doesn't seem important to you then you probably
don't know how to actually use a computer.

3) Modularity - the design philosophy behind unix makes the best
sense. Anybody who deals with complex systems or ideas will probably
agree that breaking a problem down into small and simple elements
is the best approach.

I can't find these features in another OS. So I will probably
continue to use unix. What I would really like would be something
very bare bones, like CP/M, with the features of unix that I really
like.

This guy gets it.
Unix is not perfect, but Unix and its derivatives are the best we have right now.

I never pretended to be more than one person.

UNIX is extremely bloated and buggy but we shouldn't give up using computers just because some AT&T employees weren't good programmers. Lisp machines show that you can have a higher quality OS and better programming environment with much less code. Software can be faster, smaller, more reliable, and simpler than it is now and do more at the same time.

The number of problems in UNIX is much higher compared to other operating systems. UNIX commands are so inconsistent they look like they came from different OSes.

That's because of the PDP-11 hardware. Most computers in the early 70s used a text interface.

2) Shell and pipes
Pipes are virtual PDP-11 tape drives which are based around moving groups of single bytes at a time and seeking to different portions of the tape. This is another example of how UNIX makes things less efficient, less secure, more prone to errors and vulnerabilities, more bloated, and worse for users, all at the same time, like having to serialize and parse JSON or XML instead of sharing the data like on Lisp machines and Multics.

3) Modularity
UNIX is less modular than other operating systems. UNIX weenies like to point to the "tools" as if having to start separate programs to "cut" and "grep" is better than being able to use a single language for text processing (like Perl, Python, or Lisp). Marketers were able to turn a workaround for the shell sucking at text processing into a "philosophy." UNIX doesn't help to make newer programs modular since they're not based on sequential tape processing.

The design of UNIX tools is based on low-level byte at a time bullshit instead of what you want to do with data. That's one reason XML and JSON are so popular, because they let programs interpret data on a higher level than individual bytes. When I break a problem down, I want to do it in the way that's best for the problem at hand, not in some artificial way forced by the OS because it wants me to pretend I'm writing to a PDP-11 tape.

That would be a better choice than UNIX.

Intel x86 is "the best we have right now" too, but it sucks. AMD64 killed the best parts of x86, Intel ME is a nightmare, and there are all these exploits coming out.

loper-os.org/?p=42
>My standard of comparison for any technology will always be everything previously achieved by mankind, rather than what is available on the market today.

Hmm. I used to think the strength of lisp machine toolscame from the fact that the developers actually used themregularly in their work and depended on them in order todevelop everything they were going to need in the nextgeneration system. That is, I though that there was acausal link between using your own tools and making thembetter. But maybe it's not whether you use your own tools thatmakes them good, but rather that the goodness or badness ofyour tools is just magnified over time by continuing to usethem. That would explain a lot of things about Unix...

Are you even more retarded than what I thought?

You're right. Tapes support seeking and pipes don't, so they're not quite virtual tape drives even though they're based on tapes. There was an attempt to add seeking to Linux pipes, but they couldn't do it because of fork.

stackoverflow.com/questions/5806522/how-in-portable-c-to-seek-forward-when-reading-from-a-pipe

lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.3/1111.html
However, Chris Siebenmann pointed out that a filedescriptor can be passed to other processes withfork() or domain sockets -- thus the writer side ofthe pipe would have to support multiple readers withdistinct positions. Which is a lot hairer than theinterface I outlined earlier.
That's a great example of how "anyone promoting an improved version of anything runs smack into insuperable compatibility problems" and more evidence that UNIX isn't simple and modular.

> What I can't figure out is why there isn't a giant market> for improved unix software. For example, it seems like it> would be straightforward to write a decent C macro> processor or garbage collector, and that you could make a> bundle of money selling them because everyone would want> them. But no one does this. Why not? Maybe it's because> weenies are so used to not fighting city hall that they> can't believe things could ever be better?> You really can't figure this out? It's because everytool depends for its operation on the bugs in every othertool, to exaggerate slightly. Thus anyone promoting animproved version of anything runs smack into insuperablecompatibility problems. You have to work as hard asStallman to make any headway at all.

Only someone as autistic as Richard Stallman could continuously parade around complaints from 30 years ago as if there have been no developments or improvements to an OS during that time.

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?
WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?
WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?
WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?
WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?

WHY IS TERRY A. DAVIS'S DEATH BEING CENSORED?