Live data from Hacker News

The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

kukuruku.co

51–60 of 616 posts

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#51

Everyone should, at some point, read The Unix-Haters Handbook. A great deal of it is outdated or simply wrong, but it does have a running theme of a prediction that has largely been borne out: people assuming that all Unix's flaws are actually virtues and that if you don't think so, then you Just Don't Get It. It's not hard to see how this happened: since pretty much all computers that people normally interact with a…

I did not know about this! http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf It even has an anti-foreword by Dennis Ritchie which kinda reminds me of the Metropolitan Police spokesman's blurb on the back of Banksy's book. BTW, it starts off with an anonymous quote that I've never heard, Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. Unix is of course from Bell Labs. And anyone who knew anything would have said i…

> Lessons learned elsewhere are stupid until Linus finally understands them and then they're obvious.

I think you're suffering from selection bias.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#52
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not know about this! http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf It even has an anti-foreword by Dennis Ritchie which kinda reminds me of the Metropolitan Police spokesman's blurb on the back of Banksy's book. BTW, it starts off with an anonymous quote that I've never heard, Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. Unix is of course from Bell Labs. And anyone who knew anything would have said i…

The whole document is great but the anti-forward is so good I'm going to risk downvotes by reproducing it in its (short) entirety here, emphasis mine: From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST Subject: anti-foreword To the contributers to this book: I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The…

It's 'foreword'. And I think some of the rants inside are even better than this.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#53
post #21

Everyone should, at some point, read The Unix-Haters Handbook. A great deal of it is outdated or simply wrong, but it does have a running theme of a prediction that has largely been borne out: people assuming that all Unix's flaws are actually virtues and that if you don't think so, then you Just Don't Get It. It's not hard to see how this happened: since pretty much all computers that people normally interact with a…

Having configured and used VMS, I feel I can conclusively say that the people in TUHH who preferred it to Unix were out of their goddamn minds.

Oh my god yes. That and various other operating systems I can think of that I had the misfortune to develop on. Thankfully they died out long ago.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#54
post #50
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding 'ls', I ran "strace ls" on Linux and didn't see any open on /etc/password; it's important that you run 'ls -l', which should trigger the /etc/password access because it has to map UIDs to usernames.

re: "ls -l" understood. I ran "ls -ld ."

Ah, I'm not familiar with dtrace so I guess I missed that in your comment. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#55
post #16

Although I agree that Unix is a big collection of hacks and well past its prime, the author displays several fundamental misconceptions of what he's talking about. Here's a few examples: - Dirty hacks in UNIX started to arise when UNIX was released, and it was long before Windows came to the scene, I guess there wasn’t even Microsoft DOS at the time (I guess and I don’t bother to check, so check it yourself). At leas…

> - Almost at the very beginning, there was no /usr folder in UNIX. All binaries were located in /bin and /sbin. /usr was the place for user home directories (there was no /home). Putting /home on a separate partition remains a pretty common thing to this day because users will tend to have greater storage requirements than just the root. /usr/bin and the like are the result of people realizing that this secondary larger disk is an acceptable place to put binaries and other files that aren't needed at bootup.

The author cites to this post by Rob Landley – http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074...

While I can't independently confirm Rob's claims, and he doesn't provide any citations, I do find them very believable – /usr was invented at Bell Labs because they were running out of space on their puny 1970s hard disks. (And an RK05 was small even by 1970s standards – the IBM 2314 mainframe hard disk, released in 1965, had a 30MB capacity; the IBM 3330, released in 1970, stored 100MB – of course, these disks would have cost a heck of a lot more than an RK05, and were likely not feasible for the UNIX team given their budget.)

If they had bigger disks (or the facility to make multiple smaller disks appear like one big disk) – it is less likely they would have split the operating system itself across two disks (/ and /usr). (Using separate disks for the OS vs user data was more likely even with bigger disks since that was common practice on systems at the time.)

(Some other operating systems from the same time period already had some ability to make multiple disks appear like one big disk. For example, OS/360 has the concept of a "catalog", which is a directory mapping file names to disk volume names; this means you can move individual files between disks without changing the names by which users access them. In their quest for simplicity, Thompson and Ritchie and co decided to omit such a feature from UNIX.)

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#56
post #54
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: "ls -l" understood. I ran "ls -ld ."

Ah, I'm not familiar with dtrace so I guess I missed that in your comment. Thanks for the clarification.

Understandable. The dtrace command you see is tracing a process "ls" (regardless of switches). I didn't show my work (ls -ld .) that generated the output, so your confusion isn't unfounded. :)

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#57

IMHO, a lot of the Unix philosophy boils down to: we do it this way because the neckbeard of my father and the neckbeard of his father and all the neckbeards before him unto the beginning of Unix on January 1, 1970 did it that way and if you want to do it differently, well, you better have a stronger neckbeard, because then we'll have two problems instead of just one.

Heh, are you religious and/or believe in left/right/conservative/liberal/Dem/Rep? Cause that would make your comment hilarious.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#58
> [shell] It becomes especially bad when we try to develop in it, as it’s not a full-fledged programming language.

Who the hell 'develops' in shell? It's a glue language, not a development language. I've never heard anyone say "We're a shell shop".

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#59
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Installing software was a mess." Of all the things to complain about in Linux, you choose the one thing that Mac OS and Windows still don't have right, and Linux had pretty good even back then?

Installing software from the distro is easy on Linux, but otherwise it's potentially a problem. Whereas Windows has no "distro" but the .msi system works quite well.

Pity Microsoft stopped bothering with .msi installers 10 years ago with Office 2007, and didn't bother to add any free ways to deploy all the new stuff they invented.

Re: The Collapse of the Unix Philosophy

#60
You're free to take it all and turn it into an OS of your vision.

Next thing - bitch about how Earth works, with every region, country and even, gasp, city is different because a few people a long time ago decided "this is the way to go".

Post reply on HN