11–20 of 316 posts
Yes, the "pure" Unix tools are awful, GNU improved on their usability a lot. But they're still a simple command that does something.
Except Autotools. Those should burn in eternal damnation.
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
If I ever need to feel good about myself as a software developer, I only ever need to read this book's chapter about the X window system.
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
They all are, but this book dates from a time when Unix had nothing like the absolute dominance of paradigm it does now. True, by the early-mid 90s, the Unix model had effectively won - but there remained a very large number of people with fond memories of other platforms, many of which did at least some things better than any contemporary or even modern Unix.
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. Could you name names? :)
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
I think the important thing to accept is just because something is the best option we have, doesn't mean it couldn't be significantly improved -- I feel each of bash, vim and Emacs fall into this category, in their own way.
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
Bear in mind that when this book was written, the average desktop PC was running MS-DOS, and possibly Windows 3.1 if it was new and powerful enough.
What UNIX is being compared to is the other mainframe OSes of the 1980s, from DEC's VAX/VMS to IBM's OS/360 and OS/400
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
On the other hand, programming languages that are decades old are looked upon as antiquated and not fit for modern problems, so we create new languages and discard the old ones, including forgetting useful ideas those languages contained. Sometimes, we come back to some of those ideas. So a dynamic language decides that types are in fact quite useful, and a single exe file is so much simpler to distribute than endless tiny script files, and maybe speed does matter after all.
Not passing judgement, just saying that's how it is. And it is rather odd isn't it?
This book is one of my top three books on how to become a good software dev :)
While entertaining, I'm left with the following question: if not UNIX, then what? Are there any successful non-UNIX-y OSes that are worth checking out? I may embarrass myself here, but I was under the impression that BSD, Plan 9, Solaris and HP-UX were all UNIX-y ...
Basically only two paradigms survived the 90s. The Unix way (via Linux, BSD, Darwin) and the VMS way (via Windows NT). Everything else is either ultra-niche, dying, a mainframe so ancient and terrifying nobody will go near it, or only of marginal historical import. Bear in mind that when this book was written, the average desktop PC was running MS-DOS, and possibly Windows 3.1 if it was new and powerful enough. What…
Very 90's, but I think this is what I was actually looking for ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS