/tech/ - Technology★

ntpd won't save you from one particular rogue bit

https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2017/09/27/2153/

>>843122

>I came up with something small and stupid which will mess up your clock in a controlled fashion. It will take you to the future or back again, and the ntp tools will keep on going like nothing ever happened.

Gabriel was right. UNIX and "Worse Is Better" are viruses.

>>843148

>Someone named Gabriel came up with "Worse is Better"

>Someone named Uriel founded cat-v

Now hang on just a minute

How modern descendants of Unix and even Unix itself haven't actually adhered to the Unix philosophy very well when it comes to the design of the CLI and the file hierarchy, instead inheriting all the flaws of the original implementation. This is despite the ability to more faithfully implement the philosophy today given the freedom we now have from the constraints of the 1970s:

http://mkremins.github.io/blog/unix-not-acceptable-unix/

>>843320

>This mindset -- that keypresses are expensive, and that there should be a shortcut for everything – is responsible for many of the problems with ls, and with the Unix command-line environment as a whole.

lmfao

>>843320

>he actually believes that linux implements ls

lol

>>843436

>>he actually believes that linux implements ls

That post doesn't mention Linux at all, and the article says that "neither Linux nor OS X was designed with close adherence to the Unix philosophy in mind".

Are you making things up? Do you need help with reading?

>>843438

If you're referring to Linux and the Linux command line environment, Linux has none for it is a kernel program and only a kernel program without a command line.

>>843450

Kernels can adhere to the Unix philosophy, believe it or not.

>>843320

That whole blogpost was so meaningless. `ls` implementing certain features is not bloat, he misunderstood the phrase "do one thing and do it well". It's about handling tasks, not just executing one function. The program `ls` fits that definition perfectly - it does one task, display files in various output modes, and it does it well.

>>843456

I disagree. The Unix philosophy is all about combining tools to accomplish tasks.

From The Unix Programming Environment:

>Although that philosophy can't be written down in a single sentence, at its heart is the idea that the power of a system comes more from the relationships among programs than from the programs themselves.

>>843460

Yes, but "listing files" is a single task. If the philosophy is "Do one thing and do it well", then `ls` perfectly fits that definition. The standard example is that a task like "print a file with line numbers" is not something that should be handled by `cat`, because `cat` is for concatenating files. `ls` is for listing files, and so flags that assist in listing files are not bloat.

The Joy of Erlang

https://www.evanmiller.org/joy-of-erlang.html

>>843436

>>843450

>taking GNU/loonix this far

calm down anon

>>843455

Unikernels are complete cancer anon. Here's my article it's by Bryan Cantrill and it's about how unikernels make debugging hell.

https://www.joyent.com/blog/unikernels-are-unfit-for-production

>>843484

>>843460

>>843456

>>843320

>What if instead of using program specific flags you had universal flags which operated as their own programs to format a standard output format from programs?

iirc

>>843516

Who said anything about unikernels?

A kernel fits in the Unix philosophy if, among other things, it has a simple implementation and doesn't duplicate things that ought to be in userland. You don't have to go all microkernel to accomplish that, I just mean that it shouldn't include anything like a HTTP server.

The Unix design philosophy is about far more than just modularity. The GNU coreutils are not much less modular than the original, but they're much worse than following the Unix philosophy.

I don't like the Unix philosophy though so if something is complete cancer that doesn't automatically dissuade me that it follows the Unix philosophy.

>>843521

fair enough I suppose.

Church of the Least Fixed Po­int

“Well, personally, I belong to the Church of the Least Fixed Point. Amongst others, we worship the logician Alonzo Church. Whereas ‘Christ is our Church’ is metaphysical rubbish, (along with similar claims, like ‘God is Love’, ‘The Absolute is Perfect’, &c.) ‘Alonzo is our Church’ is merely hard, simple fact.

A major problem to be solved by a religion is ‘What is the Self?’ This is essentially a problem of Self-Realisation: A Self is an X that thinks of itself. Thus, where Think X is the operation of thinking of X, we want an item Self, such that:

Self = Think Self

The Church provides an answer to this question using His Paradoxical Combinator, Why:

Why = λf. (λx. f (x x)) (λx. f (x x))

With this, it is easy to show that:

Self = Why Think = Think (Why Think)

yielding a fixed point as required.

We believe that there is great signifigance in these Results, although there remain some details (such as the exact nature of the Think functional) to be worked out.”

-Calvin Bruce Ostrum, Feburary 1983

http://liyang.hu/church.xhtml

>teach yourself programming in 10 years

http://norvig.com/21-days.html

I read a good long article on virtualization becoming the next security paradigm a few years back and never bookmarked it. I always wish I could find it again.

>>844734

That's interesting, but the result looks almost nothing like the reference.