>>1042614
That's true, but it's only part of the problem. A lot of software was written in assembly which C weenies look down on for being "less safe", but it still doesn't suffer from all these bugs and exploits. The "design" of C makes it harder to prevent errors than assembly language. That's why Linux needs 15,600 "programmers" and still can't get rid of the OOM killer.
>>1042644
There are programming languages today that don't need any C/C++ or a C/C++ compiler. Mezzano is written entirely in Lisp. PL/I and Pascal compilers don't use any C at all. It's mostly scripting languages that are written in C/C++ but there are many different implementations, like CLPython and Jython for Python.
>>1042678
People did build things for decades before and after C. In 1990 you could get a computer that has nothing written in C. The problem is that once UNIX weenies were able to get POSIX standardized, they started forcing it on people. Incompetent "decision makers" wanted "standard" operating systems and UNIX shills were able to convince them that POSIX is "the" standard for operating systems instead of being a standard for UNIX. That's like saying C is "the" standard for programming languages when the point is for C compilers to follow the standard.
>>1042694
>You need things like a filesystem to store documents, images and other data.
File systems didn't come from UNIX. That's as dumb as saying integers came from C.
>>1042703
>After finding a bunch of computer books that predate C
If you read computer books that predate C, you would know that a lot of "inventions" of C and UNIX were around for a long longer, not only before they were tacked onto UNIX, but before UNIX even existed. A lot of these books also had open questions and possible ways to solve known problems, but in UNIX, not only are these problems not solved 50 years later, but neither are the ones solved by Multics.
>I'm beginning to understand that the UNIX hater doesn't know shit about computers and is making shit up
No, you've just had your brain damaged by UNIX too much so you can't understand it.
For reasons I'm ashamed to admit, I am taking an "Intro
to Un*x" course. (Partly to give me a reason to get back on
this list...) Last night the instructor stated "Before
Un*x, no file system had a tree structure." I almost
screamed out "Bullshit!" but stopped myself just in time.
I knew beforehand this guy definitely wasn't playing
with a full deck, but can any of the old-timers on this list
please tell me which OS was the first with a tree-structured
file system? My guess is Multics, in the late '60s.