Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

In the cloud, AWS/GCP let or not let an IAM user reach a server.

What a tiresome response, but here, I'm feeling in a loquacious mood, so I'll humor it.

First, what else would I use? I don't just want a "well designed" operating system, I also NEED an open source, customizable one that is compatible with the vast majority of developer tools and build systems and toolchains — and that is, without a doubt, Linux. I don't have a better option from a practical standpoint.

And even from a design standpoint, there simply aren't any better options, because Unix killed off all of the other good alternatives, and now it's essentially the least worst option we have right now. Basically the same situation we were in when the Unix-Hater's Handbook was written.

I mean, what else have we got?

Windows? Windows NT, by way of OpenVMS so I've heard, had some very interesting ideas that I think Linux would have done well to imitate, like having a Common Language Runtime that lets you directly interact with the objects and functions of every application and code base on your system and communicate with them in structured data (something Lisp Machines and Smalltalk did first, better, but I digress), but we are beginning to get that with DBUS and things like nushell, and Windows failed its own promise there and has a vast panoply of its own flaws, not least being Microsoft. So that's not really better at all.

MacOS? There are many ideas from MacOS I'm a huge advocate of Linux stealing, but it is still fundamentally a UNIX, and in my opinion has even more flaws than Linux has, especially since Apple seems to have stopped caring about their software quality. Not to mention, uh, >AppleSo you're basically just pulling the old "you think our social system is deeply flawed in some ways and want to change it? Just go live somewhere else then."

Furthermore, I was never intimating that everything Unix did was completely irredeemable and the entire system we've spent all this time and energy building should be thrown out completely in favor of something entirely new. Instead I was responding to the failure, the refusal even, to develop this amazing testament to open source development and the operating system design sensibilities ties that drive it forward or in any new directions, among a certain crowd that determines the worth of something new by how well it adheres to the philosophy of the old.

I think we can build an excellent new system on the bones of the Unix systems we have now, if nothing else because it's what we've got to start with, and it did sort of have some interesting ideas. I just think it requires actually thinking outside of the box and reanalyzing our dogmatic adherence to tired old traditions in light of everything we've learned and everything that's changed in the interim, and the good ideas from other operating systems that we can borrow, instead of just repeating the same ideas over and over.

A flaw in our modern notion of operating system research and development which has depressed even the creators of Unix themselves: and while I don't think Plan 9 was the right move exactly — I think it actually recapitulates many of the flaws and fallacies of unix, such as the idea that everything being a file is particularly useful, or that we should use plain text designed first for people to read and only secondly for a computer to process, in idiosyncratic formats, instead of structured data — if even the original creators of Unix believe that it should be transcended (Dennis Richie), and that the original philosophy is dead (Rob Pike), maybe we should learn something from that?

Maybe it's actually okay to look at what other good ideas there may be in the problem space instead of being myopically, slavishly devoted to a sad old religion.

> Linux won on Unix merits.

First of all, even if that was the case, that doesn't mean it can't improve?

Just because, let's say, it's Unixy design was better than anything else that was on the market at the time, and so it won out against the other options that were available, doesn't mean it is the best possible option — that it can't be improved or developed, or even that the philosophy motivating it wasn't fundamentally flawed and broken in some ways; all it means is that whatever improvements could be made, or whatever was broken in the philosophy to begin with, was less broken or less bad than what happened to exist in competition with it. You're making the exact same mistake that people with conservative tendencies in life me and insisting that just because something work in the past, for whatever reasons it did that, it can't possibly be developed or improved upon. You aren't even saying if it ain't broke don't fix it, you're saying if it wasn't literally the worst, don't fix it.

In fact, I don't even think Unix won out in the server, workstation, academic, scientific, and supercomputing Realms as much as it did because of timeless technical merits and design decisions based on eternal truths that mean we should continue genuflecting to them forever (as much as the purveyors of the Art of Unix would like us to think that) but instead because it happened to have features that happened to be extremely relevant merits in the particular time and place and context it arose in, technologically and economically speaking.

Namely, that it combined extreme minimalism and portability with a reasonable level of composability, even if the composability it offered was awkward and half baked, and because the other offerings had made their own more severe tactical mistakes (Lisp Machines).

Thus it won out mostly almost by historical accident, as most things do, because a proper level of composability and integration, using defined IPC and structured data and well integrated families of tools with non-Turing-complete configuration languages was just too difficult for the hardware of the time, and so the choices were either on operating system with very little composability and flexibility and programmability, or something like unix.

But that isn't the case anymore, yet because it did win, we've retroactively deified it.

We can have our cake and eat it too if we choose to, if we choose to not get sucked in to the North Korea like UNIX cult.

We could significantly simplify things by getting rid of the account system. The same could be said for a lot of systems like database servers. Typically it's just one database, one user (your application server) with full access. The account system is mostly an annoyance.

For big company use cases where you want to reduce attack surface, why not spawn a second server with different credentials? Anyway big companies typically have many database servers in a cluster and the same credentials are shared by many server processes... The tendency there is literally in the opposite direction.

And as far as learning the options goes, learning the basics of systemd and journalctl is much easier than learning how to, say, use a source control system effectively.

(And it's definitely worth trying out new source control systems -- for example, I think most people should at least check out Jujutsu, and many people are going to like it more than Git. As simple as Jujutsu is to use, learning it takes a lot longer than learning journalctl.)