/tech/ - Technology★

>you are this mad

>No one cares

wrong. I care.

saged and reported btw

>>1035742 (OP)

He's a serial shitposter here on /tech/ and the rest of 8ch.

I just ignore him, as he loves replies and hates to be ignored (so much so that he samefags replying to himself).

He's retarded and narcissistic.

>>1035742 (OP)

>>1035744

>>1035747

>>1035752

Eunuchs weenies being THIS mad.

>>1035760

Cfags still have to deliver a sane OS after 50 years.

>>1035762

>Cfags still have to deliver a sane OS after 50 years.

At least it exists, which is infinitely more than nothing.

>>1035762

They've still produced shittons of working operating systems within those 50 years, including loads of hobby projects. Within that same time period Lispfags produced a single workstation which flopped due to gross mismanagement despite some interesting ideas and several barebones, barely functional hobby OSes (around 10, definitely under 20).

>>1035764

Maybe this is because some ideas are only good on paper? In the ideal world we wouldn't need to worry about being spied on online, didn't need to fill in CAPTCHAs and such because no one would try to exploit unprotected web forms and spam their stuff everywhere. Child pornography wouldn't be a thing because it's morally wrong so no one would produce it. Law enforcement wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be any crime.

Ideal scenarios however often doesn't intersect much with reality, hence why we call them ideal. It's nice to dream about how things could be, but in the end, they are destined to remain as dreams.

>>1035771

now kiss

>>1035760

Well, where is your GUI text editor, cniles? Oh that's right. You're too busy LARPing.

>>1035771

>Child pornography wouldn't be a thing because it's morally wrong so no one would produce it.

What if the child consents, tho?

>>1035777

kill yourself

>>1035781

Why don't you answer his question, tho?

Not the Lisper but…

>>1035742 (OP)

> Stop derailing other threads.

He never really derailed them. If it's a thread about Plan 9, he shits on Plan 9 for being UNIX, if it's a thread about another language that copies C, then he shits on it for being like C. It's all consistently on topic.

>>1035760

According to both your threads, gay poster, and Lisper's words, without specialized hardware LISP won't produce the promised results, therefore you're just asking for impossible to begin with. On top of that, all your threads got derailed into incomprehensible mess where you and other people were arguing about rules of what's allowed and now allowed when writing an editor. Asking for a binary when pretty much no modern LISP dialect compiles into binary (not bytecode), shifting the goalposts when someone was using standard libraries. And I still don't get why Emacs doesn't count as a LISP editor when ~60% of its source code is Emacs Lisp but whatever, I'll assume you wanted an entirely new editor. Here's a challenge for you though: go write a text editor in Python (or some other interpreted shit) without using its standard library while producing a portable binary.

>>1035763

>>1035764

It's better to produce nothing rather than producing shit that will poison our civilization for ages to come, if you wanna use that logic.

>>1035771

Shit comparison: there's a difference between a theory and a hypothesis. You can prove that something is good on paper without relying on subjective metrics. Besides, people claim that LISP is good because it existed.

At least the LISP fag brings something new to the table---though the quotes are getting dull—unlike most of people here who continuing to hold onto the technology from 50 years ago because "pipes are magic".

>guy doesn't agree with the over-adoption of eunuchs

>HE is the problem

yeah, sorry dude you're retarded and gay

>>1035777 Having sex with a child is good if the child consents it. And incests are always justice.

>>1035787

>It's all consistently on topic.

Not really. He recently popped into the Ada thread with a post where only a single line mentioned Ada and everything else was an off-topic rant about how much he hated C and Unix.

>>1035787

based

>>1035798

Yes really. That Ada thread you are talking about was about Nvidia replacing some C stuff with Ada.

Deep down everyone knows the Multics nigger is 100% right.

They are simply too afraid to admit the OS and programming language they have wasted so many years whoreshipping for no rational reason are shit.

>>1035809

this

if you are 100% satisfied with whichever software you are using, regardless of unix-based or whatever, then you're a fucking delusional retard.

everything can always be improved.

>if lisp is so great how come no editor is 100% lisp

>hah I'll write an editor in a fucking hour you pleb

>eh hey lisp fags is there even a GUI library for Lisp?

>hah lol GUI libraries are trivial

>no but seriously how will you write a gui editor without any gui libraries

>... months later

>no stop moving the goal posts you basically want us to write a Lisp OS. OMG how come emacs doesn't count. lol oh yeah somehow this project from 1987 doesn't meet the requirements because you can't find the code for it lol yeah haha fuck you this is a troll thread. holy shit sage this thread is harassment MODS MODS MODS. wow you ask for an editor then loads of people search and post links to random editors and then you don't apologise look here's a blog post tutorial on racket. Yasss answer him right Lispers.

Quite the thread.

I'm glad the Lispies have fully embraced arguing that it's better to do nothing successfully, a truly unix credo, rather than fail at doing something.

>>1035820

The LISPfags have provided a text editor though. Now the only question is if the Cniles on here can also write one?

>>1035808

No. His post in the Ada thread was off-topic. He doesn't define what he thinks about Ada are merits for switching. He only used that thread as a means to attack anyone who uses C and then to post his opinion. A shitpost is still a shitpost.

>That Ada thread you are talking about was about Nvidia replacing some C stuff with Ada.

That's plainly a cop out. What consumer has access to NVIDIA firmware? They won't notice any difference. They don't develop with it or for it. The only thing that changes for anyone are the developers at NVIDIA who now have to learn Ada in order to keep their jobs.

Nobody's saying UNIX/POSIX doesn't have braindamage, but Lisp good goyim in their ivory tower are even worse.

>>1035826

Stop with this forced meme, please. This is embarassing to read.

>>1035832

>Nobody's saying UNIX/POSIX doesn't have braindamage

This isn't really true at all considering the existence of insane groups like cat-v, which bow down to everything that came out of Bell Labs.

Now, that's an extreme example, sure, but many such people do exist, to a varying degree.

>>1035832

>Stop with this forced meme, please. This is embarassing to read.

The Cnile LARPer is triggered

>>1035828

tl;dr faggot.

The based UNIX hater is based. Your kvetching achieves nothing.

>>1035742 (OP) Many Unixes are open source so they are very good!

>>1035844

Sure. Thanks for the bump.

>>1035848

Literally only illumos is an open source "real" UNIX

>>1035850

"Real Unix" is not very important. What's more important is whether it is open source.

A majority of the complaints found in his blockquotes seem to have to do with specific quirks that existed on the old UNIX systems used at the time of writing, and more than likely do not apply to modern implementations.

However, some of these quotes don't make sense even within the context of the book's publication date of 1994.

>The lesson I just learned is: When developing with Make on 2 different machines, make sure their clocks do not differ by more than one minute.

The Network Time Protocol, otherwise known as NTP, has existed in some form since at least 1985: 9 years before the book. In fact, NTPv3 was out 2 years before publication, so it had already had multiple revisions.

>The big ones are grep(1) and sort(1). Their "silent truncation" have introduced the most heinous of subtle bugs in shell script database programs.

SQL has existed since 1974: 20 years before the book, and the first commercially available RDBMS, Oracle, was released in 1979. Judging from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems there have been 25+, maybe even 30+ relational database programs that existed prior to the publishing of the Unix Haters Handbook.

>Raise your hand if you remember when file systems had version numbers.

you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?

To be a bit more serious though, yes it is true that Unix and Unix-like operating systems don't have separate version numbers for the filesystems, preferring to tie them to kernel versions. Why is this a problem again? Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it? This isn't even a monolithic vs. microkernel argument, as even the microkernel OSes don't seem to bother putting version numbers for filesystems. And why should they?

>>1035858

>you mean like ext2 (1 year before publishing), ext3, and ext4?

>To be a bit more serious though, yes it is true that Unix and Unix-like operating systems don't have separate version numbers for the filesystems, preferring to tie them to kernel versions. Why is this a problem again? Because it's not how Multics or whatever used to do it? This isn't even a monolithic vs. microkernel argument, as even the microkernel OSes don't seem to bother putting version numbers for filesystems. And why should they?

I'm not the UNIX Hater, though I do also hate UNIX. I've seen this precise reply to this before.

UNIX file systems lack version numbers (versioning), which means that when you modify a file you don't have access to the previous version, along with all prior versions. That is, the UNIX file system makes no attempt to version any files whatsoever. This is something that operating systems, such as VMS, did decades ago, on much weaker hardware, on much smaller disks, yet you'll usually see efficiency or size as an argument against this.

So, what is meant by that is when I modify a file and, say, make a mistake, I can go and undo the mistake if I have a versioning file system, but under UNIX you don't have this and likely never will. Personally, I'm disgusted that the closest thing UNIX has to file versioning is an ugly, manual, explicit version of it called git, along with the other RCSes; this should be done for me.

Now you know. A related complaint is rm is forever, so don't make a mistake, because you may not be able to get your files back. Even Windows has a recycle bin that's integrated with the operating system. I tried using Gnome's garbage bin, but something broke and it doesn't work and it's not as if the OS has any concept of it anyway, so only Gnome software would use it even if it did work.

>>1035742 (OP)

>You can do and say whatever you want in this thread

and I'll call out the problems and UNIX fanboys in other threads too

>It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."

>>1035760

I told you ZMACS existed the day you made the thread. Then you moved the goal posts since you personally couldn't run it since you couldn't afford it.

>>1035764

>a single workstation

There was more that one workstation and even more that 1 company working on making LISP machines.

>>1035858

>However, some of these quotes don't make sense even within the context of the book's publication date of 1994.

Most of the quotes aren't even from the book.

>>1035863

>rm is forever, so don't make a mistake, because you may not be able to get your files back

If I wanted to erase a file because I don't want it around any more, then the file should be erased. If I don't want a file in a specific location, I should move the file. If I don't want to see the file, then I should hide the file.

.>>1035873

>It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."

That's exactly what you are doing by derailing threads. You are only posting because you don't personally like UNIX and C. That's why you derail threads.

>>1035874

>If I wanted to erase a file because I don't want it around any more, then the file should be erased

It's not just about what you want right now. Wait if your system needs that file? For example rm will happily delete the kernel with no complaints, provided it has permission to. You can easily use rm to break your system. Also even if you want it gone now, what if you wanted it back the next day? Just type it all up again?

>>1035879

>No one's going to take *feature* away from me!

>>1035880

You sure showed him!

BASED

>>1035771

i don't need to solve captchas

>>1035839

Honestly, I consider Plan9 a way better base than UNIX. UNIX and POSIX braindamage came from vendor accomodation: they just standardized a pretty immature OS without thinking we'd be stuck with it for so long. Stuff like function names being limited to 7 characters because of early ld's limitation is the kind of stuff we got.

What I think is:

>take Plan9

>replace rc with TCL (strip some useless shit like TCL 8.6's OO) and make it the OS high level language

>fix C and the stdlib (that means fixing strings, int types and adding some stuff like multiple returns and real genericity). Maybe Go without GC could do the trick

>forget that "mouse > keyboard" retardation and make vi/emacs that can be extended with TCL

>maybe take Xorg's fixed font instead of their abomination; or port freetype.

>>1035962

>>take Plan9

>>replace rc with TCL (strip some useless shit like TCL 8.6's OO) and make it the OS high level language

>>fix C and the stdlib (that means fixing strings, int types and adding some stuff like multiple returns and real genericity). Maybe Go without GC could do the trick

>>forget that "mouse > keyboard" retardation and make vi/emacs that can be extended with TCL

>>maybe take Xorg's fixed font instead of their abomination; or port freetype.

Wow. Plan9 weenies are even more retarded than UNIX weenies. At least UNIX weenies created something that works.

>>1035979

>I did something dumb

>but that's the computer fault

It'd be easy to write a hack with inotify, git and flock to provide this.

>>1035985

>It'd be easy to write a hack

Found the UNIX nigger. I'm sick of your hacks that then become standard. How about you do something right for once?

>no versioning

There's NILFS in tree and TUX3 out of tree.

>>1035986

How about you start writing something to begin with? Oh wait, if it's not perfect from the start then it is of no value :^)

No one is going to discuss how the UNIX hater "doesn't have time" to write an OS, yet has the time to shitpost on /tech/?

What has UNIX hater made that establishes him as some authority to go around shitting in threads?

>>1036061

> Windows_Vs_Mac_Vs_Linux_9.jpg

>windows is listed as PC

>implying windows is pc

>>>/out/ >>>/out/ >>>/out/ >>>/out/ >>>/out/

>>1036050

Because it likely wasn't even him, and even if it were, it wouldn't make his criticisms any less valid.

Finish middle school before posting here.

>>1035879

> rm /boot
rm: cannot remove '/boot': Is a directory
> rm -r /boot
rm: descend into write-protected directory '/boot'?
> rm -rf /boot
rm: cannot remove '/boot': Permission denied

What a rush. I can feel the power.

>>1036074

Why?

Should I learn Lisp if I hate Jews?

>>1036042

>if it's not perfect from the start then it is of no value

>if you don't want your OS to consist of hacks upon hacks you're a perfectionist

You UNIX niggers really are mentally ill.

>>1036050

What have LARPers made that establishes them as some authority to go around shitting in threads?

>>1036088

based

>>1036088

I am not implying that at all. What I am implying is that UNIX hater anon can take his time shitposting and apply that instead to make an OS. Either anon has the skills to back up his claims, or he doesn't. Not very difficult to understand.

>>1036090

>What have LARPers made that establishes them as some authority to go around shitting in threads?

Why don't you get to your point directly instead of being a passive aggressive bitch.

>>1036050

TempleOS has unironically a more solid overall design than Unix.

>>1036096

Thanks for your opinion.

>>1036089

yes. if something is made by a jew, it doesn't automatically mean that it's a trap for the stupid goyim. if the jew in the question is some ultra orthodox crackhead, then ofc you should proceed with caution and question everything.

>>1036089

You should learn Lisp especially if you hate Jews.

Learn from your enemy and beat him at his own game.

>>1035852 Almost all open source OSes are good because they are open source.

>>1036094

>LARPing

>>1036096

based

>>1036111

>scheme

lmao

>>1036145

Scheme is one of the simplest programming languages that's also useful. Once you know a lisp, it's easy to learn another. If you insist on learning Common lisp first, go take a look at the github link in >>1036111

>>1036146

If you ever write a real program in Scheme, you'll quickly find yourself adhoc reimplementing half of the "bloat" in Common Lisp.

>>1036094

Agree, I took the multicsnigger's LISP-pill, but if he really rejects to dedicate his time to program the OS he (and now I) wants instead of wasting all the time shitposting and derailing every thread, then he's nothing but a LARPer who's all words and no actions.

Hell, he doesn't even have to start all of it from scratch, there's Mezzano which is being developed almost by one person only (https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano) and he may need some help from other LISP autists.

Also, it seems that LISP-anon's dreamed OS would only have all of its promised features with specialized hardware (at least according to >>1035787), but how different is actually that hardware to what we currently have? And are there companies in currentyear+4 that produce it? And if not, how hard would it be to manufacture it and get something with comparable power to, let's say, a regular PC from the early 2000's?

>>1036203

>And if not, how hard would it be to manufacture it and get something with comparable power to, let's say, a regular PC from the early 2000's?

That would be a matter of getting an FPGA. If he wanted to shop out the HDL to some fab, he could get the silicon actually made as well.

>if he really rejects to dedicate his time to program the OS he (and now I) wants instead of wasting all the time shitposting and derailing every thread, then he's nothing but a LARPer who's all words and no actions

It's an obvious constructive use of one's time, so I don't see how it's a bad suggestion. The only thing that I can surmise is that he (it could even be she for all I know) gets more thrill disrupting discussion than contributing worthwhile content.

weenie

e

e

n

i

e

>>1036061

Few have the aility.

UNix is too complicated normal people need windows 10.

>>1036203

Don't quote me (>>1035787) on hardware support, I only heard it from the LISPer himself. Stuff like hardware garbage collector, you know. Hardware support pretty much solves any software problem, so it'd make sense. Oh, your processor is too slow at drawing graphics? Just add another one dedicated to that. Sound? Get a sound card. Go to any thread about AV1 and you'll see that to every complaint about the speed there are tons of responses saying "Just wait for the hardware support." Same goes for cryptography. It's a magic pill that solves all the problems, so I'm willing to bet that what originally made LISP so great was hardware that catered to it. After all, according to some source, part of C's performance is the fact that x86 is catering to C at this point.

>>1036268

It's even more comical when you know how bloated a performant and portable (especially portable) GC is. But this faggot doesn't care about portability, because only his magical hardware allows his kiked language to perform.

>>1036272

> this faggot doesn't care about portability

Who cares about portability if you (supposedly) have just made a perfect computer that every other computer should be modeled after?

> his magical hardware allows his kiked language to perform

So, just like C?

>>1036272

unbased

>>1036203

>make an OS for me or you are LARP

Peak /tech/.

>>1036274

>who cares about free speech if you already found what goodspeech and badspeech is?

>>1036295

Somebody is bitching about what we have today and refuses to do anything about bring forth their own utopia of Lisp. That's just sour grapes. If Lisp was so wonderful and powerful, it should take a fraction of the time it takes to write an OS in C. Today we don't see anything like that which is more advanced than a toy proof of concept.

>>1036297

Have you considered that writing a good OS may be a function of more than just the programming language, such as the hardware? You know, like the lispfag keeps saying. HW dev is expensive as all fuck unless you want to marry an FPGA vendor and go down with him.

Serious question, are the people complaining about the Multics nigger supposedly "not having time to make his OS" underage or simply retarded?

Even if you take no action to make something better than X, this makes criticisms of X no less valid.

He mentions Multics and Lisp Machines, however, to prove that it *is* conceptually possible to do better.

People like to ignore that the reason Unix derivatives are bearable nowadays and "run faster xDDD" is because of decades of manpower from thousands of people and effort put into them, not to mention decades of hardware development catered towards certain programming styles.

Demanding so much from a single person in order to "lmao prove he's not LARPing" is just silly.

>>1036301

It's a common logical fallacy. Among the shit like “but where's the alternative” and “the right tool for the right job”.

>>1036297

>hurr durr you are not allowed to criticize unless you have written an OS from scratch

Stop LARPing, faggot.

sage negated btw

>>1036301

based

>>1036301

I'm complaining about the fact that he seems to do nothing productive other than bitch about UNIX. I'm not talking about the validity of his words, which I pretty much agree with. I'm telling him to actually start projects or help others already in place that could bring an OS modeled after the LISP machines, because if he dosen't actually write anything then it (the OS) is never going to be made, he can't expect others to do it for him.

Also, I'm not saying he must write it all by himself, I adviced on >>1036203 that he could help a guy who's already started writing a LISP-OS (and he's actually writing it almost all by himself), be it helping him with the file-system, drivers, or just polishing the code, all amout of help is well received.

>>1036318

>I'm complaining about the fact that he seems to do nothing productive

>accusing others of LARPing

Protip: You're a LARPer

If you want less *nix so other OSs end up with more users/market share and you can't develop your own, why not put your money where your mouth is and donate to some project?

There's Haiku, Redox, ReactOS, Genode... Some of then have POSIX compatibility but they aren't Unix.

>>1036327

>implying that Linux isn't as braindamaged as UNIX

Top LARP!

>>1036327

>never heard of the term Unix-like

fuck off

>>1036272

>>1036268

>>1036300

The biggest problem with the Multics/Lispfag is that his ideal operating system, if made exactly the way he wanted, would probably require everyone either throw out their existing hardware or limit themselves to x86 without x86_64 support. This would be both horribly expensive and awful for the environment, and even people would still work on operating systems for hardware predating his meme dream machine.

>>1036313

>sage negated btw

A sage isn't a downvote, retard.

>>1036364

even then*

>>1036364

>would probably require everyone either throw out their existing hardware

good

>>1036369

>muh sage isn't a downvote

>i'm not a newfag XDDDD

Let me explain to you what sage does, newfriend. It doesn't bump the thread.

Now what does sage negating do? I'll leave that as an exercise to you.

anti-saged btw

>>1036396

That old hardware can be fixed, but it requires designing a custom motherboard. I am not quite certain what the performance hit would be like.

>>1036396

>implying x86 and x86-64 are the future and nothing better comes after them

Daily reminder that PowerPC is superior to x86.

>>1036456

>>1036430

t. salty iqlets who can't into monads

I'm curious, what hardware and operating system do you use, Unix-hating-kun?

>>1036443

Superior in energy consumption and heat generation perhaps.

>>1036443

>big-endian

>>1036327

Without context, this chart is useless.

>>1036675

>implying endianess matters unless you are writing shitcode that confuses fixnum sizes

>>1036676

It's probably use in servers.

>>1036670 iOS, macOS, and Linux are also Unix-like OSes. So she must use Windows.

>>1036701 Android is also Linux.

>>1036796

I should mention the Multicians have a simulator, a simulator which came out seven fucking years after Bull released Multics' source code.

>>1036800

That's because most Multicians have died of old age. I expect Lispfag to be pretty old.

>>1036796

>why are these 5 million fans each of old computers extremely similar to modern computers able to produce a virtual machine while these 100 fans of obscure systems aren't able to produce a total hardware conversion layer without any documentation and without the knowledge of any of the engineers, with about 5 machines confirmed working

>>1036825

>able to produce a virtual machine

Nah man, many of these projects are OS recreations targeting different architectures than the original OS. I mostly just mentioned virtualization to give the Classic Applefags a bone.

The point is that the Unix haters community does absolutely nothing but bitch. They claim to have all this accumulated wisdom but put absolutely none of it towards making actual software, original or recreations. Very rarely you'll get some barely functional lisp thing that boots in a hypervisor while hobbyists tinkering in their spare time make shittons of unixlike and non-unix OSes.

Ultimately, these lazy faggots just expect someone else (preferably a big corporation peddling custom hardware) to make software for them.

>>1036832

It's almost as if Unix does less.

>>1036841

Again, a good chunk of those operating systems (especially if we include original ones I haven't explicitly listed) aren't Unixlike.

>>1036675

>big-endian

Newer Power processors are biendian.

>>1036851

m8, comparing Genera (yes, that's the state of the art) to something like Amiga is retarded. The only way you wouldn't notice that is if you didn't know about it. Now you do.

>>1036863

And here the true ugliness of "the right thing" approach surfaces. Unix haters want Genera, Multics, CP/M, or OpenVMS, but if their hardware is different from the ideal they throw up their hands and go back to bitching, because god forbid they implement anything differently from their idols. Without every part of the ideal in place, they refuse to adapt or settle and end up with nothing.

>>1036868

Because the hardware matters you retard. Is there a reason you need to defend Unix like an asshurt 12 year old? You act like you're being personally attacked whenever someone criticizes a bad 50 year old OS.

>>1036884

And you're still the dumb ass. Go figure.

>>1036884

I'm not defending Unix, retard, I'm shitting on a bunch of lazy faggots who screech about the lack of an ideal OS but refuse to work with anything but ideal hardware.

>Because the hardware matters you retard

Of course hardware matters, but your options are either working with existing hardware, making new hardware, or doing nothing. The Unix haters crowd chooses the latter because it's the least work and leaves more time for bitching.

How dare these untermenschen dare to criticise UNIX and C? Is it not Ironic that they are using UNIX to insult our glorious this supposed "failure"? In fact, no critiscism of UNIX is legitimate, as they could be spending that time creating an alternative. That UNIX had billions of dollars and thousands of developers thrown a it is irrelevant, as the wide spread of UNIX is simply a rsult of a meritocracy and all "criticism" is just multics acolytes expressing their envy at the glory of C. I myself have data loss what some would say was due to UNIX behaviour, however I enjoy the punishment, as I am individually responsible for all that happens to me. Personal accountability is why UNIX is superior to any possible alternative system that works for the user and provides for his comfort.

>>1036895

Nice strawman, fag.

>as they could be spending that time creating an alternative

"That time" being several fucking decades in which numerous FOSS operating systems have popped up and reached varying levels of functionality. This Unix haters crowd had all this time to get their shit together, only to come up with absolutely fucking nothing and excuse themselves by crying about hardware.

The Unix haters community are largely spoiled, picky brats who expect someone else to work for them and are completely helpless on their own, quite ironic for a bunch of people calling everyone else weenies. It's a shame people associate interesting languages and OSes with these shitters and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

>wow i don't like this guy's posts

>let's make an entire thread about him where i do nothing but bitch, moan and repeatedly rant about how dumb he is

>>1036902

The fag has been breaking the board rules and shitting up threads with barely on-topic threads for over a year now and the mods have done nothing. Is it really so surprising people hate him?

>>1036904

>No spamming,

doesn't apply

>sagebombing,

doesn't apply

>unwarranted self-identification

doesn't apply

>or making posts advertising or requesting any kind of currency, referrals, boards, products, and/or services.

doesn't apply

>doesn't have any meaningful content,

doesn't apply

>indecipherable text

doesn't apply

>contributes nothing toward discussion (ie. posting just to announce sage).

doesn't apply

>It does NOT mean "anything you don't personally like."

Very much applies.

His shit is far more on-topic than this autismal backseat mod thread.

>>1036909

Of course you (((conveniently))) left out the "signatures, avatars, tripcodes" bit while defending an identityfag who signs every post with one of several usenet and mailing list quotes.

>>1036910

Yeah, because you were totally bothered by the usenet quotes, right? That's definitely the reason you made this thread. If he wasn't posting these, everything would be absolutely fine for you.

You retarded self-appointed board QA are the biggest fucking cancer any board can get, thank god you are not a mod or you would turn this into the worst circlejerk the world has even seen.

>>1036911

Nice assumptions, faggot. I'm not OP for starters, and if the Unix hater stops signing his shit and using unrelated threads as an excuse to soapbox about Unix and C for the six millionth time (the Ada thread being a recent and particularly bad example), he'll still be annoying but no longer a banworthy identityfag.

>>1036912

That thread isn't even remotely derailed and most of the shitflinging originated before the multicsfag posted. Neither is posting quotes a signature, the only reason I didn't mention that earlier was because the idea that the quotes of all things is the reason you hate him and want him banned is fucking ludicrous. Nobody buys it.

By nobody, I hopefully also include yourself, but knowing how quickly "GOTTA PROTECT DA BOARD!!!1" retards go off the deep end I wouldn't be surprised if you deluded yourself to that point.

>>1036916

>That thread isn't even remotely derailed

It isn't derailed, but it's an example of his usual "use the thread topic as a platform to bitch about C and Unix" except even worse because it's about a language he actually likes.

>Neither is posting quotes a signature

Yeah, and if I wrote "WHAZAM" like an absolute faggot at the end of every post that totally wouldn't be a signature either. It's called a forum signature and a good chunk of those were quotes.

>the only reason I didn't mention that earlier was because the idea that the quotes of all things is the reason you hate him and want him banned is fucking ludicrous. Nobody buys it.

An anon shitting on an identityfag? Inconceivable. It's not like people complained about tripfags, avatarfags, cuteposter, or k00lniggers either.

>>1036911

>by the usenet quotes

They aren't from usenet, though.

>>1036920

The difference is that WHAZAM is unrelated to the content of the post, but the quotes aren't. This distinction is the reason identityfagging is hated, so it's not exactly small. You even agree it's on-topic and not a derail.

Soapboxing is literally half of this board.

>>1036927

>The difference is that WHAZAM is unrelated to the content of the post, but the quotes aren't

Usually the only connection between his posts and quotes are that both are written by people who hate Unix and C. By your reasoning, I could pick from a pool of reusable quotes like "WHAZAM, I LIKE YOUR POST" and 'WHAZAM, YOU SUCK" to end every post with and they wouldn't be signatures because sometimes they're related to the content. It's basically the same shit as avatarfagging.

>You even agree it's on-topic

Not really. He only mentions Ada in the opening sentences as an excuse for a rant, a rant in which he mentions Ada exactly once in a list of other languages he views as more portable than C.

>>1036933

>Usually the only connection between his posts and quotes are that both are written by people who hate Unix and C

I disagree, more often than not the quotes relate to what he is saying.

>>1036796

You know, even though I'm on LISPfags side here, I agree with you. A lot of people nowadays do nothing but bitch, could've spent that time actually producing something. The only problem that'll come afterwards is adoption---nobody wants another Plan 9—but it's a different topic.

>>1036960

Why does it matter that Plan 9 exists and is theoretically "better" but nobody cares to adopt it? What is the meaning in having many people use Plan 9?

>>1036976

How can you prove that something exists if no one knows that it does?

>>1036832

>why are these 5 million fans each of a simple, uncomplicated OS running in machines which everybody has had at some point and have all their hardware documented and pretty similar to modern machines, and that still have millions of working models, while these 100 fans of machines old as shit, only used at universities or research by a VERY limited subset of people, most of whom are dead, with the only working machines at a museum half around the world, haven't been able to recreate one of the most complex, featureful OSes to ever exist

An Amigafag can hop on eBay and buy 10 new old stock Amigas at 10$ each and play with them in his spare time at home, while the Lispfag has to buy an airplane ticket everytime he wants to go see a machine, and a Multicsfag has got ZERO hope of seeing it running it on an original machine

>>1037046

>while the Lispfag has to buy an airplane ticket everytime he wants to go see a machine, and a Multicsfag has got ZERO hope of seeing it running it on an original machine

Convenient excuse.

The problem is that these people keep ramming their opinions about OS / language design into other threads where it doesn't belong. They will type up even more lame opinions that the hardware is why it didn't work and have nothing to back it up.

Regarding LISPfag.

>It used a custom CPU, the 68000 was used to run the keyboard, the mouse and to boot the main processor.

It's easy to get a 68000, and the custom CPU is not difficult either, but all of that is still irrelevant. Even with hardware designed specifically for LISP, normal x86 CPU's were running LISP faster than that actual, custom hardware. The argument is moot. LISPfag can build the OS on x86, and if he / she so desires, can build or contract custom hardware afterwards.

Multicsfag can do the same. What is happening however is that because everything isn't perfect for them already that they throw their hands up and walk away from producing anything.

I don't care if they give up before they even start, but what I do care about is shitting in threads where it doesn't belong. Shitposting is against the rules on this board. If the mods would actually enforce the rules, maybe we would have some decent content here instead of some dude spamming multiples of the same thread that belongs in one of the stickies.

inb4

>we don't have the resources or references for that custom hardware

Go to a library. Ask one of the old engineers who worked on them. They exist. You are lazy and don't want to do anything but shitpost.

>>1037065

My point is the people scale. Of course, when 5 million people are fans of a machine, there's a decent chance at least some will have the ability to replicate everything. But when there are 100 fans of multiple machines, almost all of them are above 60, and the original machines are all dead and its engineers are even older than the fans, there's not much of a chance there.

If not even Sun with its modern OpenSPARC managed to drum up much of a developer/fan base (or any at all), what will some extremely rare and old machines do?

>>1037065

All of this has been argued to death in this thread already and it is blatantly obvious you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Yet you insist on writing new variations on the same tl;dr butthurt every day. Get a doctor, holy fuck.

>>1037069

>My point is the people scale.

And that's why nothing will ever come about this, because they give up before they even start.

>But when there are 100 fans of multiple machines, almost all of them are above 60,

That's their golden years. They better start doing something with their retirement instead of shitposting on a lizard terrarium how-to board. Otherwise, they might lose their minds.

>its engineers are even older than the fans, there's not much of a chance there.

Libraries. Old books and documents. Those old engineers tended to save everything they could in hardcopy before they left the company or retired. The information exists even if the first-hand experience passes away.

>>1037071

>it is blatantly obvious you have no fucking idea what you're talking about

Where am I wrong?

>>1037261

He'll probably bring up something about hardware bounds checking or segmented memory.

>>1035781

>o shit I haven't actually developed an argument and just spout whatever (((they))) tell me to

>Uhh uhh

>i know I'll just type

<kill yourself

>>1035986

File versioning in that os was not the intention,however they couldn't prevent it so it became a feature.

>>1037357

>muh j00s

GO suck a RUSTy CoC

>>1037363

>We have more than enough processing power on modern x86 CPUs to compensate the lack of unique-snowflake hardware.

We do, but whenever someone tries to do something different, which, when it comes to Lisp, inevitably involves needing a highly capable runtime to compensate for the lack of dedicated hardware, you niggers start sperging about "muh performance", and "muh executables" since c is "closer to teh hardwareh!!!111".

You've got quite an attitude to call it "snowflake hardware" when it existed before you faggots were even born.

>>1037261

>Where am I wrong?

>The information exists even if the first-hand experience passes away.

Here, most of the important documents are lost. There is one guy trying to take apart one of the Ivorys to reverse the thing, but progress is really slow.

>LISPfag can build the OS on x86

Also here, you will spend most of your time working around the retardations of x86 rather than making your OS when you do that. People have actually tried it. There is also the problem that misdesigns of the hardware very quickly creep into the design of the software. On an architecture where bounds checking incur a cost, people will try to avoid bounds checks, as a simple example. On an architecture where type checks are done in hardware, in parallel, there is no cost to them, but once you have to explicitly implement them, you start doing stupid things like trying to prove they are unnecessary etc.

>>1037260

He says, assuming that I'm other people responding to him.

Fuck, of course I remember a good example right after I press Reply: Overflow checking. I think one of lispfags mailing list posts even mentions that.

>>1037435

Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software. There's probably architectures with better bounds checking out there, but doing something in hardware != faster performance.

Reminder that part of why Lisp machines died out (aside from horrible mismanagement) is because people realized Lisp ran much faster on general purpose microcomputers than it did on their specialized hardware.

>>1037440

>He says, assuming that I'm other people responding to him.

Congratulations on missing the point.

>>1037489

>hehe if i selectively quote and ignore all the points where my bullshit falls apart i can argue for two more days

Mental illness. MPX is an afterthought and afaik not parallel either.

>>1037489

>Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software. There's probably architectures with better bounds checking out there, but doing something in hardware != faster performance.

What the fuck does any of this have to do with what I've said? Bad attempt.

So I am not bothering to read this whole thread so correct me if I am wrong. The unix hater, who is justified because unix sucks, is bitching about c and unix without offereing alternatives and this is just a whole thread dedicated to his shitposts? Ontop of that the lispfag came in here too and bitches about the design of x86 from hardware to software being complete and utter shit but his solution of lispmachines is also shit, but more secure by design.

Did I read that right? The problem with bounds checking in hardware is that it requires the software people to change. People don't like change. Even if you implemented a machine that does all the error checking in hardware at every step of the proccessor of transfering electrons people would still bitch because its too slow.

If you implemented a CPU-RAM design that excluded MMU's and gave the programmer DMA that all did error checking in hardware with no scedulars of any sort, the programmer has all the control. They still would bitch because they can't intentionally cause errors and can't program for multicore/non-linear computing for shit.

X86 has suffered heat death and a complete redesign of how proccessors work is needed. The lisp machines do some things right like error checking but as a whole machine are not as secure or effiecient as they could be.

>>1037523

>writing summaries for things you haven't read

>>1037500

>Mental illness

Thanks for the salt.

>>1037489

The point was that dedicated hardware doesn't always make something faster. I admit MPX was an unusually bad example, but even so Lisp machines weren't faster than the microcomputers which killed them. People liked them for other reasons.

>>1037523

>is bitching about c and unix without offereing alternatives and this is just a whole thread dedicated to his shitposts

He namedrops alternatives only so he can shit on C and Unix, even in threads about said alternatives.

>but his solution of lispmachines is also shit, but more secure by design

Lisp Machines were not remotely secure or designed for security. They were HLLCA workstations with some hardware-enforced memory safety features for stability's sake.

>>1037528

Thank you for the clarifications, I have not studied lisp machines because lisp.

>>1037528

The argument for hardware isn't performance, that was entirely brought up by you. That you can't even find good examples for your own deflections is the icing on the shitcake.

>>1037536

If the arguement for lisp machine hardware isn't performance but security why isn't it encrypting all the data before transfering it between the proccessor and RAM? Or between the GPU and the screen?

#autism

>>1037536

Nigger I said in that very post that people value Lisp Machines and their hardware for reasons other than performance. I'm not the faggot who brought up performance either.

The middle section was in response to >>1037518 but I fucked up and responded to the wrong post number.

>>1037541

You brought it up in >>1037489.

>>1037545

That was in response to someone else talking about performance and yet again, my point was that the people who liked Lisp Machines liked it for reasons other than performance. The performancefags probably weren't using Symbolics machines and if they were, they likely didn't stick with them for long.

Part of me thinks I could have avoided all this if I rephrased the post, but given how you're still confused multiple posts layer maybe the problem is you.

>>1037550

later*

>>1037550

Well, see >>1037518 then (who isn't me ftr). If you put the sanity into the software layer you will have C weenies complaining about muh performance, which is also what I vaguely referred to in >>1037440. What does that have to do with whether certain things are faster in hardware? The complaint doesn't come because it's slow, the complaint comes because it isn't """optimal""".

>>1037555

So even if the hardware bounds checking isn't faster than a good software implementation on an architecture without it, it's still worthwhile just to shut up muh C weenies? This shit is fucking hilarious.

>>1037559

Are you merely pretending to be illiterate?

>>1037560

But that's what you're saying, you fucking fruit.

>If you put the sanity into the software layer you will have C weenies complaining about muh performance

>The complaint doesn't come because it's slow, the complaint comes because it isn't """optimal"""

They complain because the bounds-checked solution, hardware or software, is a bit slower than one without it. Not slow per se, just slower. For most things it probably doesn't matter and they're just being autistic, but in something like AAA vidya it could have a noticeable impact on performance.

>What does that have to do with whether certain things are faster in hardware?

Let me put it this way: if doing something in hardware isn't faster than doing it in software a good hardware implementation probably is faster, why do it in hardware in the first place? Simplicity?

If we look at your earlier post, we find the most damning example of all:

>On an architecture where bounds checking incur a cost, people will try to avoid bounds checks, as a simple example. On an architecture where type checks are done in hardware, in parallel, there is no cost to them, but once you have to explicitly implement them, you start doing stupid things like trying to prove they are unnecessary etc.

Intentionally or not, you're painting the picture that even if hardware bounds checking isn't faster it's still worthwhile to stop and spite anyone who'd try writing software without it.

>>1037576

Now that I think about it, most game engines still use hand-written assembly for a couple performance-critical algorithms.

>>1037576

>if doing something in hardware isn't faster than doing it in software, why do it in hardware in the first place? Simplicity?

Pretty much, but also for the reasons I described in the post you quote directly afterwards. If bounds checks are performed always and in parallel, so that there is no performance difference whether the bounds are violated or not, the question "do we check bounds" doesn't even present itself. If all data is type-tagged for free, the question "do we eliminate type information at runtime" never presents itself, because there is no longer a (poisonous) reward for removing the handrails from the bridge. There you go, massive classes of errors eliminated.

Once the foundation is solid, the rest of the system can be much simpler, and this compounds. Consider that Lisp Machines had implementations of Lisp, Fortran, Ada and C, all of which could share data structures safely and efficiently. But in a software implementation on top of retarded hardware like x86, these questions necessarily appear, and in particular C weenies will bitch and moan about muh bloat and whatnot, precisely because on current hardware it is suboptimal. But it's not restricted to them; look at what current day compilers (even for Common Lisp) are doing. Optimizing out simple sanity checks is standard nowadays, and the damage caused by OOB-based exploits speaks for itself.

>>1037591

That's cool and all unix hater fag but your alternative of lisp machines don't proccess encrypted contents and transfer them to the screen to be decoded. No I am not trolling here I am completely serious. How would you even make something like this simple for better hardware security?

didn't we have this thread last year?

ctrlf+f bait

32523578235827835 results

>>1035742 (OP)

lisp works perfectly, crying about traction doesn't change that fact. if i wanted to run a LISP OS I could write my own in a day

>>1036796

this legitimately sounds like you're a non-boomer butthurt about boomers, so you can fuck off

>>1037489

>Intel has bounds checking extensions and nobody uses them because they're just as slow (sometimes much slower) than doing it in software.

citation needed, it's more likely they're too busy with their employer's fist up their ass than ever even touching assembly

>>1037584

and they still have shit perf, because gamedevs have no idea what the fuck they're doing (which is not surprising given the demographic)

>>1037523

>The problem with bounds checking in hardware is that it requires the software people to change. People don't like change.

most correct post in this thread. software "engineers" don't give a flyfing fuck about anything, that's the reason we still have stack smashes (and god forbid things that are 100x moronic like string injection vulns, which are a result of UNIX braindamage). every faggot and his mom will now reply "but muh performance". performance has not been a concern to software "engineers" for over 30 years. I can beat anything on the Linux desktop in fucking _Haskell_ with some basic optimizations. If you really think people are using C for optimization, you're a clueless dickfuck who just repeats everything he heard on the internet.

>>1037611

>citation needed

https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00719 , although MPX has plenty of non-performance issues too. I shouldn't have brought it up because it's an abnormally bad take on hardware bounds checking.

>>1037612

Yeah. Having a couple key algorithms in assembly is very helpful but these days the performance troubles are often related to poor cache usage, shit threading, and not feeding the GPU properly.

>>1037617

>dickfuck

What kind of lame insult is that?

>>1037611

There is literally nothing wrong with being butthurt about boomers.

>>1035752

He's right, however.

100% correct.

However the GRSecurity patch does address some of his concerns and actually implements x86 security features that Unix (and Linux) ignores for "compatability" reasons.

>>1037489

GRSecurity does this in kernel space.

Has done it forever. Rejected by linus ofcourse. Linus is a faggot.

>>1040132

The fag shitting up /tech/ wouldn't go so easy on Bell Labs and AT&T.

>>1040132

Had to bump the thread that badly?

>>1035858

>A majority of the complaints found in his blockquotes seem to have to do with specific quirks that existed on the old UNIX systems used at the time of writing, and more than likely do not apply to modern implementations.

This is the whole of the UNIX Hater's Handbook. If you read "A Brief History of Hackerdom" by Eric S. Raymond, you'll learn that the UNIX-Haters were sore losers in a culture war

>>1040166

>handbook

Fine. But let's not pretend *nix doesn't have retarded mistakes everywhere or that worse is better is some kind of cultural victory.

>>1040168

The Unix Hater's Handbook is a real thing. I was not making a joke. It has been previously mentioned in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook

>But let's not pretend *nix doesn't have retarded mistakes everywhere or that worse is better is some kind of cultural victory.

UNIX did make mistakes in some places, but a lot of the mistakes have since been rectified, or worked around. A lot of the mistakes were completely written out of Plan 9 as well.

As for Cultural Victory, if you read "A Brief History of Hackerdom", you'll see that for a long time the Hacker factions were primarily LISP, UNIX, and the small faction of MS-DOS hackers, all communicating on the APRANET and other services. After the PDP-10 was canceled (that is, IIRC PDP-10) LISP hackers no longer had newer systems and slowly died out, as UNIX took over. ESR says that the LISP hackers began to hate the UNIX hackers solely for this reason. I read it in the print edition from 1998, so I don't know if there has been revision to this essay, as ESR often does to his works.

>>1040171

Found the exact quote from the 2000 edition hosted on ESR's site (Chapter 3)

>The death blow came in 1983, when DEC cancelled its `Jupiter' followon to the PDP-10 in order to concentrate on the PDP-11 and VAX lines. ITS no longer had a future. Because it wasn't portable, it was more effort than anyone could afford to move ITS to new hardware. The Berkeley variant of Unix running on a VAX became the hacking system par excellence, and anyone with an eye on the future could see that microcomputers were growing in power so rapidly that they were likely to sweep all before them.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/hacker-history/index.html

>>1040171

I've read the handbook I'm just pointing out that it is far from the only criticism of *nix.

The lispfag may keep posting quotes from the mailing list but I mean come on *nix has major flaws that will never be fixed.

For two obvious flaws just look at the shell and filenames.

The shell is just awful. Passing arguments is bizarre and was clearly just the easiest thing they could do at the time. Yeah in Plan9 they tried to fix stuff but we don't use Plan9 do we.

>>1040171

>ESR says that the LISP hackers began to hate the UNIX hackers solely for this reason.

This is revisionist bullshit. The reality is that it's all technical aspects of UNIX that suck. Most programmers never used (or even heard of) UNIX until they were forced to use it by "decision makers" and they realized that it was inferior (and still is tens of thousands of developers and billions of dollars later). This is like the Redditor in >>1034317 who says iPhones are about "social recognition" and "demonstrating your affluence" instead of technical merits. It can't possibly be that Apple users are not buying iPhones as much anymore because they suck (not coincidentally due to being UNIX machines), no, it has to be some bullshit about impressing other people. Eric S. Raymond's reason for using UNIX is that other people use it, so he can't comprehend that people use and appreciate something for its intrinsic value.

>the Hacker factions were primarily LISP, UNIX, and the small faction of MS-DOS hackers

This is more revisionism, which came from literally revising the jargon file to fabricate a false relationship between MIT systems and UNIX. The concept of a "UNIX hacker" is itself revisionism. UNIX is no more closely related to Multics than any other OS with a hierarchical file system. Even worse, Eric S. Raymond alleges Multics "never became a success" when the UNIX name was a play on "castrated" Multics because Multics was a successful and widely known OS with a good reputation for quality, security, and reliability.

>Thus, the spirit and tradition of ITS was preserved as an important part of the newer, Unix and VAX-centered hacker culture. Stallman's design finished what Berkeley had started, fusing the remains of the PDP-10 hacker culture with the Unix crowd.

It's true that PDP-10 hackers disliked that DEC canceled the PDP-10 and migrated users to VAX, but the VAX was associated with VMS, DEC's own operating system. Tying VAX with C and UNIX is as revisionist as tying MIT with C and UNIX. The only thing UNIX did for the VAX was harm its reputation. "Nothing sucks like a VAX" was a vacuum cleaner slogan used by UNIX weenies, but never VMS users, for that computer. It's another example of how "clever" error messages like "bus error" can get users to blame hardware for software bugs.

> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 10:54:45 PST
> From: DH

> The JARGON file is being updated.  The guy doing so has
> changed the nasty references to Unix to refer to MS-DOS
> because "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix
> partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the
> ITS philosophy." as he says.

Perhaps the saddest part of this is that, in truth, MS-DOS
is closer to the ITS philosophy than Unix.  But then there's
a long tradition of the jargon file being promoted by people
who are unclear on the concept, so this is really no
surprise.  Plus ca change, plus serait merde.

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 18:19:23 -0400
Subject: Meeting Unix Robustness Standards

Heard in a talk by a vendor at a conference I was at
recently...

  ``The unix market has generally been more forgiving
    on quality aspects.''

Gee, I always thought of the distinctive Unix level of
quality as unambiguously negative.  But seen from the other
side, it has its advantage.  First beat your customers into
a daze where they don't know good from bad, then lean back
and enjoy the cash flow from putting out products that meet
established expectations... Why didn't I think of that?

>>1040221

I don't think you've ever used UNIX or a LISP machine. These Usenet posts you keep REposting are individual's opinions, which have been refuted with other's opinion. I am lost as to your cause at this point. Are you saying UNIX is bad because it was forced upon people? It really wasn't. Are you saying your opinion is better than others? I think it's the latter. Were you even alive in 1990? Where are you getting these archives? A zip file you downloaded on some obscure site made by UNIX Haters, that hasn't been updated since 1998?

UNIX has some problems. Plan 9 attempted to rectify these problems. To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine. To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_. You keep REposting the same few selected Usenet articles as well. Have you run out?

>>1040223

>To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine

Well it does. For example, you can still put new lines in file names. It still uses a clunky shell instead of a REPL. Security issues are constantly found in *nix. It allows you to destroy itself (rm -rf /). It is also not user friendly. These are problems that are still not fixed.

>>1040221

based

>>1040223

>two paragraphs to essentially say nu-uh

>>1040221

>UNIX is no more closely related to Multics than any other OS with a hierarchical file system

Yeah, an OS made by a couple ex-Multics developers totally has no relation to the based and redpilled Multics. Stay mad, faggot.

>>1040223

Look, he's only able to talk about his supposed favourite technologies in relation to how Unix sucks and rarely in much detail. Almost everything he says is the kind of stuff you'd pick up from reading a shitton of mailing lists and usenet posts, usually historical trivia, and when he goes into detail it's always stuff you can easily find on the Multicians website or any other OS hobbyist site.

Most of his valid complaints are tied to C being a pretty janky language. Almost everything else is him bluffing, bitching about historical Unix implementations, and parroting stuff he's read. I doubt he's actually tried most of the stuff he shills and it's painfully obvious in the rare case he stumbles into a thread where people actually use stuff he likes, such as Ada.

Well, Multicsfag. You often complain about how some programmers decided to take the easy route instead of doing the Right Thing when developing.

In other words, you complain about how people try to have the maximum profit with minimum effort.

But this is exactly what you're doing here now. Instead of bringing Multics to today's world (the source is available [1]) you're just bitching and moaning about how Unix is inferior, quoting age old articles and hoping someone somewhere is doing something productive to your view.

People misuse the term LARP, but in this case, it suits you greatly. You only pretend to be doing something, pretend to know something, but you are producing nothing.

[1]http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics_Internet_Server/Multics_sources.html

holy shit you faggots are still arguing over this

>all this crying about reposting old usenet articles

it provides context, a concept you would never understand, you fucking milennial garbage.

>>1040336

no, LARP is much more suitable to calling out retards who suck UNIX cock and think they're 1337 because they've used "the framebuffer API" (or any other classic example of a completely unpowerful piece of junk they fap over) or some basic use of pointers in C.

>>1040166

UNIX is garbage. are you just talking about "UNIX Haters" (as in people who mindlessly repeat stuff from that book or something), or people who in general who believe UNIX is terrible OS design?

>>1040171

>UNIX did make mistakes in some places, but a lot of the mistakes have since been rectified, or worked around. A lot of the mistakes were completely written out of Plan 9 as well.

plan 9 is shit and indistinguishable from UNIX. People who hate UNIX hate Windows for the same reasons. It's a piece of shit based around files (a horrible fucking way to pass arguments around) and C ABI.

>>1040223

>UNIX has some problems. Plan 9 attempted to rectify these problems. To say it has the SAME problems it had over 30 years ago is asinine.

HAHAHAHA

oh yeah, UNIX fixed the problems because time and is now a completely reasonable OS

>>1040341

More like OP is taking every excuse to bump this shit thread. Totally not samefagging though, that's literally everyone else.

>>1036325

Been donating to Haiku and ReactOS for years.

>They call *nix users weenies all while they happily go with the flow, never bothering to actually challenge the status quo.

that's some fucking good ryhmes right dere mayne, im gonna put it in my next lolicore album

>>1040402

tbh I'd listen to a lolicore rap album

>>1040320

>>1040336

unbased

>>1040341

based

>plan 9 is shit

double based

>>1040464

that's not seymore cray

>>1040231

This man, ignore him, is literally a gov shill. his job is to try and research and come up with arguments that sound intellectual as an angle approach to dissuade hardcore tech peeps to abandon nix systems because they are more secure than modern offerings.

>>1040532

I believe you.

All government workers are either one of two things predominately when they do this sort of thing:

1. Stressed, overworked, and anal retentive like this guy.

OR

2. Apathetic towards the situ, and severely condescending in blinding ego towards the person.

Lisp machines couldn't even hold their water to PCs back then, that's the whole reason they died out. Late 80s PCs would run lisp programs more effectively than these things ever did. Especially for their price. There's no point in reviving the concept today, less than ever before even.

There's no point in using Lisp either. It had it's place, it's an interesting curiosity but it's outdated. There are tons of languages that do everything lisp does better.

>>1035777

A child cannot be trusted to consent because he is too easily manipulate. I hope prison catches up with you.

>>1035813

>"If you are satisfied it means you think it can't be improved."

And so "satisfied" loses all meaning, as nothing is perfect, thus nothing satisfied. Nice work, retard.

>>1040551

>There are tons of languages that do everything lisp does better.

I really wish you retards supported your statements with details. As it is, it's no different from someone saying that language X does everything every other language does, but better.

>>1036808

he actually did in a thread.

>>1035760

Daily reminder that anyone who spent time to listen to your demands, and actually tried to make a text editor, is a retard.

How long is it going to take you to PayPal some cash to me? If you don't follow my demands, it will be interpreted as silent acceptance that you eat shit every morning.

>>1040223

>I am lost as to your cause at this point.

In the 60s and 70s, there were computers with much greater quality, security, reliability, not to mention usability, all with a fraction of the code and cycles used by a "modern" UNIX kernel that does much less. Later on, Lisp machines had a level of productivity that exceeds web development even with all those frameworks. Instead of a web browser, developers would use native documents and applications, which would be fast and tiny. They had real code reuse and good OOP that actually worked as promised. Crap like JavaScript wouldn't even need to exist.

>Are you saying UNIX is bad because it was forced upon people? It really wasn't.

No, it's bad independently of anyone using it. I'm complaining about it because it was forced on people. What do you think POSIX is? POSIX was a way to force UNIX on people so AT&T could get more licensing fees and avoid the OSI protocols by redefining "open standard" to mean UNIX. POSIX expects your computer to look like a PDP-11, which killed a lot of good hardware.

>Are you saying your opinion is better than others? I think it's the latter.

It's about actual facts, like the huge number of lines of code needed to accomplish something, every interpreter needing its own garbage collector and being unable to share data, shitty shell languages that can't pass file names or handle wildcards properly, enormous overhead in process creation and context switching, null-terminated strings, no real arrays, networking hacked into the kernel, and so on. Trying to fix them (like microkernels) just leads to a slower UNIX because weenies still use C and ignore everything that's not "portable" even though it's better.

>To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_.

It literally is revisionism. Multics was a successful OS that was used until 2000 and influenced a lot of operating systems like VME, VMS, Lisp machines, and so on, and even the rings and segments in x86 CPUs, which UNIX avoids.

>>1040336

>In other words, you complain about how people try to have the maximum profit with minimum effort.

I complain about how it takes many times more effort to produce an inferior result. 15,600 developers is not minimum effort, and that's just the Linux kernel, which is still full of bugs that languages from the 60s would have prevented just by having real arrays. The unproductivity of C affects everyone using it, including system programmers.

Subject: Unix Fellates Worm-Infested Camels

    I think I've identified the fundamental problem with
unix.  It's not that unix fellates worm-infested camels.
It's that

   NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

    Unix is full of dumb bugs that any competent hacker
could fix in ten minutes.  But more than ten minutes is
wasted by *every* hacker instead.  ``Yup, that's another
dumb unix bug.  Sigh.  Well, let's write an elaborate
work-around...''  The problem is cultural: there seems to be
an attitude of ``you can't fight city hall.''

    ITS and the lispm are such wins not because they are
better-designed (they may be, but god knows they have plenty
of brain damage in them too) but because they have a culture
of ``That symbolics namespace editor sucks, so I spent ten
minutes writing a better one and installed it on b:.''

    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?

>>1040707

based

>>1040795

based

>>1040223

>To call a historical account revisionism by a man who has been in the industry since 1975 is further _stupidity_.

It's fucking ESR.

>>1040810

>It's fucking ESR.

<muh hacker culture celeb

>>1040813

I'm implying he's a retard known for revisionism.

>>1040853

>waaah mods

>fuck off back to nigger cattle chan weenie

>waaah mods!!!

pottery

>>1035874

<Mistakes are not a thing.

Unix weenies are truly retarded.

When i see "Start pty allocator daemon" while booting, I think, "what fucking bullshit is that, get me out of this system". What kind of moron would defend this shit? An OS based around a bunch of retarded terminal hacks is not a good design. The reason the only arguments supporters can ever give is "but it's popular, how popular is YOUR OS? You obviously aren't a good business person if you don't want to support UNIX", is that these people don't understand anything about OS design. Since they can't make any technical points, they resort to arguments around "business". In fact, they struggled and struggled to learn enough UNIX to get by and fear the idea of ever having to learn anything else, and make fun of people who don't know UNIX. Then they go on to fuck up their misconfigured UNIX system even more and add more layers of hacks. The same boot screen I just mentioned is full of "starting this.... [N/A]", "starting that... [OK]", "configuring LAN interfaces... [FAIL]". You can just smell that someone made some shitty rc script and has no idea how to do it properly.

>>1040798

based

>>1040853

unbased

>>1041475

based

>>1035742 (OP)

Wow, when I saw this thread from the catalogue I thought maybe you'd come into this discussion with factual refutations of his points. Instead you're just whining like a little baby about the rules. How pathetic.

>>1041540

based

>>1041741

Wow, when I saw your post I thought you were going to contribute something by understanding what the complaint is. Instead you are just whining like a little baby about someone's opinions and expecting someone to argue opinion about opinion over another opinion. How pathetic.

based >>1042591 <<based

>>1042591

unbased

>>1042592

you're not the based based poster

unbased

bump for UNIX hate. day of the seal when (though that only applies to Linux)

Let's look at some typical UNIX shit today and watch LARPers defend this.

While trying to set an invalid CRTC configuration in the Linux DRM API, you might get back some bullshit generic error like this:

SET CRTC: No space left on device

Which fucking space? Is an integer too big? Which one? This is HTTP level garbage. Generic error codes were never good or useful. It turned out the problem was the framebuffer was too small for the CRTC, which makes this error completely misleading and worse than nothnig.

Now looking at some typical shit ifconfig outputs:

# ifconfig wlp5s0 mem_start 123

mem_start: SIOCSIFMAP: Operation not supported

You might as well use Java and output a stack trace here, this is just as retarded. This is not a real UI. And worse yet it's not an API either. It's a typical piece of shit UNIX command line tool that can't decide whether it's a UI or API and sucks at both and crashes everything that tries to use it as an API (rightly so).

And just about every networking thing will try to interpret stuff as """host""" names.

# ifconfig netmask nigger

nigger: Host name lookup failure

No, I don't want a hostname, fuck off. Don't try to resolve shit and leak what I'm doing over the entire internet. Don't stall me for 10 billion nanoseconds while you try to resolve hosts when I run iptables, arp, or netstat without the -n flag. Don't try and trick me into thinking a centralized piece of shit naming system, which is pretty much as aids as HTTP (actually, retards are literally pushing DNS over HTTPS right now as we speak), is secure or useful. Don't send my fucking """hostname""" (a thing I don't even want, but am forced to set) to the guy I'm trying to SSH into. And don't even get me started with locales.

And I've lost track of how network devices are even named or whatever the fuck udev does or why I should care, what the fuck is wlp5s0? When I started UNIX 15 years ago all the marketing (aka skids) had me thinking this is a real OS where I setup every device myself and only the drivers it needs. Nope. UNIX is a bunch of retards playing with copy/pasting driver configurations (and other shit, such as udev) from the internet until it "works", while not having the slightest clue how their hardware works. If they did, they'd just write their own OS because it would be faster than fucking with UNIX. To be explicit, I don't want any autoconfiguration or enterprise bullshit, I want to use only the code I need to make the OS run on my specific hardware. No UNIX does that, even LFS probably sucks for it (and even then you'd have to use all the generic infrastructure - aka bloat - which the drivers are built around), but why would you go through the trouble to setup such a proper configuration when the OS has nothing good about it in the first place. It's literally a bunch of shitty ABI and hacks around the terminal, mixed with retarded concepts like """hostnames""".

>>1040853

makes sense that a UNIX LARPer watches TV and has been on cuckchan after 2006

>>1043305

>ifconfig

>not the iproute2 suite

>LARPs as an oldfag but somehow doesn't know what an absolute shitshow 8/tv/ is

Nigger the video of /leftypol/'s tranny BO sucking off /tv/'s BO has floated around the internet for years now. You don't have to watch talmudvision to know /tv/ is complete trash.

Will the mods finally enforce the rules and ban this retard?

>>1043371

>>1043074

Neither of those posts relate to the threads they were made in. There wasn't even an attempt to be relevant.

>being so assmad about a single poster you make a thread purely to whine about him and bump it every other day complaining about specific posts

lmoaing @ u're lyfe OP

>>1044578

Sure.

>>>/tech/1048913

Desperate.

UNIX braindamage is why we have to go through the insufferable thought process of considering whether the computer will crash each time we type a """special""" character, such as any of

[code]

~!@#$%^&*()_+-=`{}[]:";'<>?,./\|

[code]

or even Unicode points outside of ASCII.

When specifying a text search, I literally have to stop for a moment to think whether it will crash because I accidentally typed & instead of *. Is it a website? If it doesn't crash or break my user profile with invalid data, it will ban me for "hacking", because some smartass wrote a regex that "detects" "hacking attempts". Is it a file browser? Pcmanfm will literally crash if you change the file filter in a folder before it's done loading, so it's not unreasonable to worry about it crashing in the typical edge case of entering something that so happens to be a metacharacter in some stupid fucking UNIX language.

Now let's look at a modern use case, downloading videos from websites. To do this, since the web is a broken piece of shit (largely because of UNIX braindamage), you would use youtube-dl, which is just a bunch of scripts to download from each website's special snowflake video hosting scheme. The typical way people use youtube-dl is to just open a terminal wherever you want to save the file, and copy the link from the web browser's address bar and paste in after the youtube-dl command. i.e youtube-dl http://videos.muh_special_snowflake_tld/v/ABCD1234. Now after doing this for 10 videos, you'll inevitably find one like http://aaaa.video/v/abcd&x=1234. When you paste this into the terminal, you now have to surround it with or escape the & or some other bullshit. But if you forget to do this or don't notice the URL had an &, not only will it fail to download the video, but it will set the variable x to 1234. Does putting around every URL solve this? No. Typing yt 'ctrl+v' is already tedious, and isn't even safe. The URL could have ' in it. So now you have to check every URL for '. But even then it's still not safe, because the web browser rewrites everything you paste into a different form. So in theory, a website could apply the inverse of that function on a malicious string (e.g abcdef&rm --no-preserve-root -rf / with a newline at the end of it). Think it's safe because you looked at the code of the address bar? Think again, it doesn't work the same way in every browser, bash supports constructs you don't know about, and the code of both changes literally every day for no reason (often to "solve" another security vulnerability, LOL!), so whatever assumption you make today will become false eventually. Now what are you going to do, paste the shit in a text editor and hope it strips all forms of metachacters and look over it before pasteing it after the youtube-dl command?. That's fucking retarded. All that work to pass a fucking string to the youtube-dl command. And even then, some metacharacters and other shit will make it through. Even the Unicode text direction override can enable some funky shit. Now some people use plugins in the browser. That's a fine idea, if the browser and plugin interface weren't shit. In practice, due to the same UNIX braindamage damage mentioned in this rant as well as plenty other forms of UNIX braindamage, the plugin with have vulnerabilities, and they will indeed be caused by UNIX braindamage, as opposed to a real issue like side channels, mark my words.

Also it's funny that the youtube-dl manual has to tell users how to use their terminal:

   Video URL contains an ampersand and I'm getting some strange
       output [1] 2839 or 'v' is not recognized as an internal or external command

       That's actually the output from your shell.  Since ampersand is one of the special shell characters it's interpreted
       by  the  shell preventing you from passing the whole URL to youtube-dl.  To disable your shell from interpreting the
       ampersands (or any other special characters) you have to either put the whole URL in quotes or escape  them  with  a
       backslash (which approach will work depends on your shell).

       For example if your URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc you should end up with following command:

       youtube-dl 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc'

       or

       youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4\&v=BaW_jenozKc

       For Windows you have to use the double quotes:

       youtube-dl "https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=BaW_jenozKc"

But that only fixes one case. The fact is, even UNIX LARPers who would know at least how to escape stuff properly (to some extent), are not safe.

You may be asking, why all this rant about a trivial issue? Because UNIX cannot even solve trivial issues. Do you think it does better at harder problems for some reason? No. In practice you just stumble across trivial issues like this every minute and use the standard workarounds and "best practices" and hope it works (and obviously it doesn't, since your product receives a constant stream of CVEs and your "engineers" are doing stupid shit like pasting stuff from the web to their terminals).

>>1049463

mfw get cucked by UNIX braindamage while ranting about UNIX braindamage. dunno how you can escape double ' on this website so have it in code blocks:

you now have to surround it with '' or escape the & or some other bullshit. But if you forget to do this or don't notice the URL had an &, not only will it fail to download the video, but it will set the variable x to 1234. Does putting '' around every URL solve this?

>>1049463

based

>>1049464

based

>You may be asking, why all this rant about a trivial issue? Because UNIX cannot even solve trivial issues. Do you think it does better at harder problems for some reason? No. In practice you just stumble across trivial issues like this every minute and use the standard workarounds and "best practices" and hope it works (and obviously it doesn't, since your product receives a constant stream of CVEs and your "engineers" are doing stupid shit like pasting stuff from the web to their terminals).

This right here is so based that it hurts.

>>1049465

based

>>1035742 (OP)

C is shit, Unix philosophy is stupid and your butt is hurt.

>>1049464

I'm not an Eunuchs weenie, and yes, the issue you brought up is annoying, but how would you solve it then?

>>1049482

Here's an idea that a 5 year old would have thought of if he didn't get converted to UNIX religion at birth:

given some non-UNIX OS, the console has some command typed in it, like:

[get video] [   ]

you click on the second box

it goes into edit mode

you hit ctrl+v to paste a link you copied from the web browser

you hit enter

it exits edit mode

also, since this is a non-gay shell and non-gay OS, you can't put $ or some stupid metacharacter in the string and fuck up your console. no matter what is in the string, it's just a string

>>1049507

>is weeb

>is retarded

Gas all weebs.

>>1049490

>>1049507

>>1049508

>but they're boxes, not square brackets

Either way, enjoy your gay fill-in-the-boxes shell with extra typing and no actual fixes unless you throw out metacharacters in a fit of autistic rage. As you choke on your terminal's plump, metacharacter-free cock you can comfort yourself with the reminder that even if you're a flaming faggot, at least you aren't a weenie.

>>1049463

Either you stop being retarded and simply quote your stuff, or you replace sh with something better like tclsh.

>>1049490

>comparing interactive and non interactive interfaces like they're the same

Please kill yourself.

>>1049507

>it should use square brackets instead because that would change everything nevermind that your solution still doesn't differentiate between commands and strings, so all you've done is recreate the same situation with more typing

No, it solves the problem perfectly. Those aren't square brackets in text, they are rectangles drawn around the strings so you can see which string is which. No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command. If you want to change the argument count you could have a hotkey like ctrl+a to add a new box and ctrl+d to remove one. This is all just an example to show how the problem could be solved in a way that even a 5 year old could have came up with if he didn't smoke UNIX.

>>1049511

>Either you stop being retarded and simply quote your stuff, or you replace sh with something better like tclsh.

No, this is a fundamental problem with shitty little UNIX languages. It only gets worse when you try to actually compose anything. Why would you want an underpowered piece of shit language, yet still it doesn't allow you to simply paste a string? Also you failed to understand the problem since you think metacharacters and whatever other abyssmal UNIX braindamage can sneak into your string can be fixed with simple quoting or visual inspection. As already mentioned, even if you quote your string and pretend metacharacters and shit don't exist, you still have to read over the entire string to make sure it doesn't have ' inside it (or 10 million other characters such as $ if you're using ").

>>comparing interactive and non interactive interfaces like they're the same

What the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about an interactive interface here. You get to type a command and add argument boxes.

>>1049510

I'm not the LISP-weenie or whatever weenie you're talking about. The shell should be SML and have proper support for strings and shit. Which means it's just as powerful as SML (instead of some gay shell script that can barely manage to implement `if`) but has some keyboard controls to enter strings and other various data structures.

>Either way, enjoy your gay fill-in-the-boxes shell with

>extra typing

no, you can reduce this to a simple keystroke or two, and it saves you from having to care about malicious input

>and no actual fixes

it saves you from having to look over the string to see if it's going to fuck your terminal, and also from malicious input. entering strings in the bash or python shell was always tedious anyway and it's literally faster to open up a text file and paste it in there and load that to a variable as a string (which is a lot of typing, no matter how many macros and hacks you use)

>unless you throw out metacharacters in a fit of autistic rage.

what?

>>1049515

>No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command

It's almost like you're forgetting the shell is a fucking scripting language and not a simple program launcher-

>If you want to change the argument count you could have a hotkey like ctrl+a to add a new box and ctrl+d to remove one

Have you even thought of how you'd distinguish argument boxes from string boxes? All you've done is recreate a babby version of "just put quotes around your string you fucking idiot" except now there's blocks and extra keypresses around the arguments too. All this retarded complexity because you're too stupid to use quotes and are so fucking new you haven't encountered a situation where metacharacters are useful.

Throwing out buzzwords like braindamage and weenie doesn't magically give your views wisdom or weight. Lurk moar.

>>1049515

>No matter what you paste in, it wont be interpreted as another command.

Some shells do roughly what your asking for. They use colors to denote how parts are interpreted. They detect when your pasting (relies on terminal) and prevent you from doing certain things. The latter point always pisses me off. I know what I'm doing, I pasted it completely intentionally, because I want to run the command or whatever.

>This is all just an example to show how the problem could be solved in a way that even a 5 year old could have came up with if he didn't smoke UNIX.

Go implement it yourself fag. The way UNIX is set up, very few things are implemented at a level so low that you can't change them. What your saying is simple enough that it would be a couple of hours of coding to get a basic PoC, assuming one doesn't exist. No one's uses them because it ends up being easier to learn how your tools work then it is to constantly fight with them.

>>1049519

>it saves you from having to care about malicious input

Wouldn't save me shit, because I don't worry about someone trying to hack me with malicious copy-pasted commands. I download scripts and execute them without reading the entire source code more frequently then I copy paste, and if someone hacked me with those I wouldn't immediately see that they're trying to hack me.

>>1049522

>What your saying is simple enough that it would be a couple of hours of coding to get a basic PoC

So you're saying I can code my personal nigger? Fucking finally.

It's hilarious to observe the braindamage on display in the posts of the UNIX weenies defending the UNIX retardation that is "let's just use strings for everything".

Please keep it up, I'm _literally_ ROFLOLMFAOing on my floor right now because laughing my fucking ass off.

>>1049551

>but muh compatibility

My dick is compatible with your asshole. Shall I put it in?

>>1049556

Your dick is also compatible with a woman's mouth, tits, and thighs. Do you really want some highly specialized penis that only fits into a highly specialized vagina so you can't possibly use it for anything else?

>>1049560

My penis is also compatible with a meat grinder.

>>1049567

Do the world a favour and stick it in there

>>1049551

>Look bucko, there are exactly two choices: Unix, and literally the most ineffectual thing I can come up with

The only reason you constantly have to deal with serialization in your OS is the Unix retardation of "everything is a byte stream". This is so similar to the story of every Perl programmer it's painful. Your "tool" keeps causing problems that you then half-assedly "fix" with it, and not only do you not notice this, you love the "tool" for helping you with all the problems you wouldn't have otherwise!

>>1049588

>and literally the most ineffectual thing I can come up with

I wish, but that's often what people end up promoting.

>muh serialization

Is it any wonder that a multi-user OS most frequently used as a web server is a little too fond of serialization?

>>1049595

The serialization bullshit has nothing to do with security or being multi-user and everything with there being literally no safe way to share objects on Unix.

>>1049596

Which admittedly makes the previous "only" a bit of hyperbole, but the problems flow from there; not only is the stream idiocy so deeply anchored into the system that it's impossible to remove, it's also "good enough" (for a very bad value of good) that people will not look for alternatives.

>>1049588

>serialization is an OS problem

See Tcl, since everything has a unique string representation all the time, you just have to write to/read from files to serialize. If you want to force your object bullshit on the whole world, good for you, but don't come crying if others aren't doing it for you.

>>1049816

>your object bullshit

Stop patternmatching "object" to "Java" and try thinking instead. Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?

>>1049968

>Stop patternmatching "object" to "Java"

I thought the same thing, it's so common. Why do Eunuchs weenies think OO = Java?

>>1050149

Because they are LARPers that can't program. They only know the memes.

>>1049968

Stop strawmanning hard, it makes you look even more retarded than you are. The problem is that it seems that the Lisp good goyim are talking about a monolithic and kind of "don't care about compatibility" solution to the problem: something like emacs's eshell.

Fine if you want to live in your bubble without any competition, but I'd say a standard format to replace both protobuf/bencode and *ml/json is the best solution.

UNIX took the contrary approach and used the least common denominator to get maximum compatibility abd simplicity: the byte. I'm kind of against it, especially when ASCII gave use 3-4 separator characters just for that; anybody who has explored (secure) POSIX sh as much as I will understand the pain of having no interchange tabular format (and the POSIX tard not standardazing the NUL record separator, at least).

tl;dr fuck off with your ivory tower Lisp intellectualism, just use ASCII 28-31 like they're supposed to be used

>>1050166

My condolences, anon. Living with braindamage must be hard.

>>1050166

>Lisp good goyim

But Lisp is made by Jews, for Jews.

>>1050166

This "compatibility" is completely illusory; you still rely on the exact kind of output the program shits out, whether it's a custom format (aka "plain text"), JSON or whatever the fuck. In the Unix world you get the big bonus that 99.99% of things don't even fully parse it correctly and just kinda do a halfassed job. Underspecifying your format doesn't make the actual format disappear, it just makes the format annoying to deal with. You are still just programming against an API, but once you make that part explicit, you can actually work with it.

I'll ask the question again since you didn't answer it: Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?

>>1050149

They never saw anything else and hating Java is understandable, not to mention the cool thing. Of course most retards then move on to praise C++, having learned nothing.

>>1050927

>Does it make sense to de/reserialize everything between every function call?

Not in any other setting than the default shell, where the simplest possible API (string argument array + environment + stdin -> binary -> stdout + stderr + exit status) is the goal to be language and program agnostic.

Note that I advocate replacing sh with tclsh, but I still understand the philosophy behind sh. The problem with UNIX is more in the implementation and "side" ideas than core ideas, as Plan9 showed.

>>1050941

>as Plan9 showed

Plan9 is unusable shit.

>>1050941

This interface is language and program agnostic in the same exact way C is portable, i.e. by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack, resulting in ten million variations on the same basic thing. Basic things such as named arguments, the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!). The exit status is another example of a hilariously terrible interface that I seriously hope I don't have to explain. It's only simple in the sense that the system implementer can be lazy.

This situation is then rationalized to an "advantage", to "flexibility", but your own experiments in trying to replace the shell will have shown you why this basically amounts to writing your own (better) system (unless of course you just want to replace your "program launcher", but guess what, you could do this on top of a more useful interface too, and even in ways that are substantially different rather than a paintjob). Because the OS facilities are too shit to actually specify anything, everything relies on informal interfaces that you either have to replace or painfully emulate.

Pretending the structure isn't there doesn't make it disappear.

>>1050950

based

>>1050950

>by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack

That is a fucking non-argument and you should fuck right off with shit like that.

>Basic things such as named arguments, the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!)

Especially with stuff like that.

>in trying to replace the shell

Replace shell with what? If it's anything other than shell, we're not really coding for UNIX environment at all. Also if you need IPC, Unix has sockets or whatever, I don't really know what you're getting at here.

>>1050966

Back when I was in the German equivalent of what Americans call high school, we had a thing called "Sozialpraktikum" (literal translation: social internship). We had to intern for 2 weeks at a hospital/nursing home/special school/homeless shelter/etc.

I chose to go to a mental hospital. Shit was just like in movies: Padded cells, crazy motherfucker in straight jackets mumbling batshit crazy stuff and so on.

The most fascinating thing was that most of the really crazy ones didn't even realize that they were crazy. You remind me of them. You have braindamage and don't realize it. Seek help.

>>1050966

>fuck you unix da bes

wow sure showed me

>>1050942

Plan 9 was good tho

>>1050981

But anon, he's right. You shouln't try to act superior to people, it's unbecoming.

>>1050950

>This interface is language and program agnostic in the same exact way C is portable, i.e. by being so gimped and useless that every program has to pick up the slack

Where didn't you get the bit about simplicity and agnosticity? And why do you think portability is compatbile with your "passing CLisp objects around" idea? You might really be the original Lispfag, with your lack of argument wrapped in truisms.

>Basic things such as named arguments

Should be handled by the executable.

>the fucking switch syntax seeps into every single program (and many handle it differently!)

It is bad, but I'm waiting for something better from you. Having long options from the beginning would have made it way better too.

>This situation is then rationalized to an "advantage", to "flexibility"

Are you implying that this wasn't the goal from the beginning? Flexibility/simplicity over ease of use?

>but your own experiments in trying to replace the shell will have shown you why this basically amounts to writing your own (better) system

That is a lot more complex and monolithic. As I said, I don't really endorse sh, but I understand the rationale behind it.

>Because the OS facilities are too shit to actually specify anything, everything relies on informal interfaces that you either have to replace or painfully emulate.

getopt(3) and getopts(1) are standard, you know.

Now, show me that all of these problems aren't just technical bagguage. And please don't do it by showing me your retarded Lisp machines needing special hardware to not be slow as molass because GC is the most retarded and lazy idea ever and dynamic typing is almost as idiotic. You know why UNIX was adopted? Because as shitty and barebone it was, it was still miles ahead the Entreprise (tm) tier like PL/I and Multics that are the equivalent of modern web browser in term of code bloat and complexity.

I'm pretty sure all the Lisptards don't know how complex and hideous a performant and portable GC implementation is.

>>1050981

>hurp durp brain damage

Really creative, didn't hear that one before lol

>>1050985

Hint: you should try harder to convince somebody that X sucks.

There's stuff I dislike about UNIX, but environment isn't really the problem.

BTW is the UNIX hater also LISP fag?

Literally LOL

Lisp is unreadable untyped pile of garbage from 50s literally nobody uses and basically all LISP fucks are NEET basement dweller hobbyist whatevers.

>>1050966

unbased

>>1050981

double based

>>1050985

based

>>1050987

The only good thing about Plan9 is that nobody uses it.

unbased btw

>>1050988

double unbased

>>1050990

unbased

>>1050993

unbased newfag

>>1050988

>It is bad, but I'm waiting for something better from you. Having long options from the beginning would have made it way better too.

It really is not though. You don't have to parse shit in the most general case, period.

<b-but muh usability

The shit like "./myprogram d 0xea 1337 .06 whatever" is usable, you just need documentation.

>>1050997

>>1050998

STFU cocksucker.

No circlejerking allowed in this thread. It would be much better if you were able to post something "based" in your own terms.

>>1050988

Let's drop the concept of data types too. So what if every program has to reimplement basic data types, it's much more simple and agnostic that way. Next we're dropping arithmetic other than addition, programs that want to multiply can just implement that themselves. Think of all the extra hardware our completely useless simple and agnostic system can run on now!

>simultaneously argues that the named argument shit is (a) not a problem and working as intended™ (b) bad but i don't see you do better (c) fixed by a library (how agnostic!)

This is your brain on Unix.

>Now, show me that all of these problems aren't just technical bagguage.

What does this even mean. You can ask that for almost all the phrases you keep repeating, but this one in particular is something else.

>That is a lot more complex and monolithic.

Yeah because it actually does something rather than telling the user to reimplement shit the OS should be doing.

>prove me wrong, but please don't actually use the thing that proves me wrong

Classic.

>>1051003

>It would be much better if you were able to post

something "based" in your own terms.

I do. I also "based" my own posts :^)

unbased btw

>>1051005

based

>>1051008

Goddamit dude, you shouldn't be that fat. It's no fun.

>>1051005

>>simultaneously argues that the named argument shit is (a) not a problem and working as intended™ (b) bad but i don't see you do better (c) fixed by a library (how agnostic!)

You are genuinely fucking retarded.

a) it works as intended, whether you like it or not

b) I don't agree with that anon on that, but OO shit like PowerShell is even worse

c) not just any library; but C standard library LOL

>>1051017

>hurr durr objects means java right

You don't get to call anyone retarded.

>>1051017

unbased

>>1051105

based

>>1051105

.NET = Java?

Go to the nearest hobo hideout, suck all their dicks, cut your head off and ask them to shit down your throat (beforehand lol).

Though if you code in any OOP language at all, you are a fucking disgrace to humankind anyway.

Like, why do you even post, you fucking waste of human material. Absolute shithead fucking retard.

>>1051127

nice LARP, unbased faggot

>>1050993

>Lisp is unreadable untyped pile of garbage from 50s literally nobody uses and basically all LISP fucks are NEET basement dweller hobbyist whatevers.

Swap "Lisp" with "C" and "50s" with "70s" and notice how accurate it sounds.

>>1035809

>The OS, programming language, instruction set architecture, that they have wasted so many years whoreshipping for no rational reason are shit

>no rational reason

whoreshippers whoreship the whoreshipped. it's perfectly rational.

each whore will become effete, whoreshippers disuse the effete, move to the next hot young whore, who, having learned the lessons of the effete the easy way, will be hotter longer.

of course, since humans are forgetful assholes, we'll shag her no more than we shagged the hag, before disusing her as though she's just as effete as the hag was when we disused her.

it's not that the new hotter whore is really as effete, but we don't care. we demand cheaper hotter younger whores. be glad it's not your daughter.

...

this sort controversy is just a sign that the current whore is nearing effetion. the controversy grows, tips to the new, by when the old guard grip their dying whore while, elsewhere, another whore is conceived, and has somehow managed to acrue a mass of paedophile whoreshippers who will follow her into next controversy, where they will leave to find a new conception, and are replaced by us forgetful assholes who aren't afflicted by that most nauseous perversion.

>>1051167

add "nobody" with "everybody", "hobbyists" with "hobbyists and professionals alike", "untyped" with "statically typed", "unreadable" with "the one true language" and you might have a point

>>1051198

>C

>typed

lolno

>>1051233

>implicit casting is the same as no typing

lol no

Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to base the entire user interface of the OS around non-computer device which hasn't existed since some decades before 1990? Nobody, of course. It's just another pile of hacks inherited from UNIX.

So today I was typing some stuff into the Python shell:

>>> runlengths(cycle(908,256))
<generator object runlengths at 0x7fe314f14570>
>>> list(runlengths(cycle(908,256)))
[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 0]