Live data from Hacker News

The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

web.mit.edu

131–140 of 316 posts

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#131

Unix is weird because it evolved organically and without a unified direction. But it remains because power and familiarity beat user experience. 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.

Since when "evolve organically" become bad? Unix was created as a tool to solve unbounded problems. It is not possible to attempt to have a complete solution when the problems are unbounded. Today, vast computer users have bounded problems -- surfing webs, messaging, playing games. With the bounded problem, it is possible to have complete solutions -- Chromebook, iPad, etc. are for them. They are not supposed to deal with Unix just like drivers are not supposed to understand transmissions or engines. Engineers sit in between the components, tools and the products, consumers. If the average computer users have problems, blame engineers, not the tools or framework that engineers deal with. And for engineers, they still appreciate today that the underlying tools and frameworks are created versatile enough to solve unbounded problems. And for some comsumers would like to think they are smart (or cheap) and would like to bypass engineers, then they shouldn't complain or they are mixing up their problems.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#132
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And the last time I came across one of those I compiled and used modern tools. Because even 20 year old Linux versions had tab complete and a vi that worked with directional keys

Assuming one has the access rights for it. I do occasionally ssh into boxes were I am a lame user without compilers installed.

You can install stuff in your home directory. No access rights needed. Look up the --prefix argument.

This isn't windows, after all.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#133

I like to cover myself with some crazy question and think about them. For example, what would look like the thing that would make people go "oh this looks good enough to replace UNIX". Don't get me wrong, I am big fan of UNIX, but I hope I will be alive around the time(but I doubt that) when we will see some new thing which will make UNIX feel dated. Now, some of you might jump and say "Oh, but UNIX already feels dat…

Google's Fuschia OS project is intriguing. It's open source, but I haven't been able to find any whitepapers or conference talks about its design or Google's plans for it. The speculation is that they wanted an ultra-lightweight OS for future low-latency augmented-reality applications. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271354 )

For decades, I have challenged people with a dollar bet tha they cannot correctly spell "fuchsia" given five tries.

Everybody thinks they can spell it, but I have never lost the dollar. Sometimes I pull out the same bet six months later and still win it.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#134
post #83

Any thoughts on UNIX security? I've been wondering what the most secure OS is for a long time, and the answer seems to be "systems that stopped being developed before you were born."

If you're not aware of it already, have a look at these links as starting points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computer_System_Evalua...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-evaluated_operating_s...

A lot of the lower-level criteria require features present in operating systems we all use from day to day.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#135

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 put the post below together for anyone wondering what UNIX alternatives existed with what superior attributes:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957020

"Successful" was mostly social and economic factors rather than technical. The most successful in mass market are the OpenVMS variant called Windows, an OS building a GUI platform on a UNIX/Mach hybrid, UNIX OS's such as Linux, and an OS building a user-space platform on Linux. UNIX's and BSD-licensed code allowed companies to save money & increase adoption building on existing code/ecosystem that had tons of momentum. Mainframe OS's are still going pulling in huge revenues, including MCP via Unisys (Burroughs renamed post-merger). IBM i's succeeded AS/400 that succeeded modern System/38. Microkernels and mainframe VM's got reinvented as modern clouds with VM's or containers. Legacy continues even if original products mostly died out.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#136
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming one has the access rights for it. I do occasionally ssh into boxes were I am a lame user without compilers installed.

Yeah, it's not always possible to compile your own tools (At least they have ssh and not telnet) What you can sometimes do is pick an alternate shell or find some other editor someone 'left lying around' (even typing vim instead of vi can give you something different) And sometimes "tab completion" works with \ or ESC or something similar, I don't remember exactly

Sure it is. Heck, it's not even that hard to build gcc as a cross compiler, if some idiot hasn't installed a compiler.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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? :)

See Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT by Zachary. Gives you an idea what the Unix landscape was like, and how primitive Windows was when Dave Culter's team from Digital began building NT (after the VMS at Digital), which became Windows XP (when Windows stopped crashing every hour).

Much of what we assume every OS does today was cutting edge development in 1990.

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#138
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

still worth checking out? or just worth checking out? The coherency of VMS (and the VAX platform) is quite amazing - Coherent command line interfaces, API's, documentation, hardware, and software, even down to coherent part numbering made by a single company, from small workstations up to larger scale minis, and nearly transparent clustering. I mention VAX specifically, since by the time Alpha arrived, DEC was compet…

I've installed and played around with VMS on an emulator and even on my own VaxStation, but never used it in a production environment. I'm sure real world usage left a lot to be desired, but my impressions are that VMS as a product was well-rounded, feels complete as if there aren't a lot of loose ends. In contrast to the unix philosophy, VMS feels DESIGNED, as if the people working on it had a coherent idea of the w…

"VMS feels DESIGNED"

It was. This is one of the reasons outside of its legendary reliability that I keep bringing it up. It's a cathedral where most things fit. There was cruft to deal with. Overall, the pieces work very well together as the teams had a coherent vision for how they wanted the system to work. It also integrates solutions to problems such as distributed locking and node failures that other systems dump on the app developers.

Not to mention I never got these testimonials or personal experiences when I started with UNIX...

http://h41379.www4.hpe.com/openvms/30th/t_guestbook.html

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#139
post #67
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do opengl efficiently over the network. At least xorg can't. Most applications uses opengl these days. For me, I've been using Linux fulltime for the last 15 years and I have never, not even once, had the need to connect to a remote X11 server. ssh has always been enough for me.

> Most applications uses opengl these days. Now 'most' is a relative term, but I do not think that's true at all. There are very few applications that use OpenGL. Obviously games are an exception, but if you count in all GUIs I would say mostly target X11 (via Gnome or KDE).

Chrome (and I guess most web browsers) do.

Stupid, stupid Nvidia drivers...

Re: The Unix-Haters Handbook (1994) [pdf]

#140
post #3

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.

An office I worked in in the early 90's had a shelf with a ten(?) volume set of X windows books - and each individual book was a thick bugger. I'd only had fleeting experience of it, but remember thinking "how complex can this thing be ?!"

Much of the mass was printed man pages for every single API call.
Post reply on HN