/tech/ - Technology★

>>877425 (OP)

>Eric S. Raymond

stopped reading right there

fuck you

>>877431

No, Fuck You!

>>877427

>>877428

>>877431

All me

>(((UNIX)))

>>>/metatech/

>>877425 (OP)

>ESR

>>877449

>(((LISP)))

get it? it's parenthesis. you can laugh now.

>sore losers

Hating UNIX is about losing: losing time working around bullshit that has no logical explanation, losing data to UNIX bugs and misdesigned programs, losing your mind whenever you look up a bug that caused you trouble and find a post from 1991 that says the bug hasn't been fixed for years because UNIX weenies don't consider it a bug. I hate UNIX because I'm tired of losing.

Weenies blame research, standards, the web, user error, everybody is doing it, and other bullshit for UNIX bugs and misfeatures. There was once a time when all that bullshit was called out for what it is. That's why they don't like these posts.

    Doesn't it give you that warm, confident feeling to
    know that things aren't Quite Right, but that you'll
    have to wait 'til you need something to know Just What?
    Life on the Edge.

    Get with the program -- remember -- 90% is good enough.
    If it's good enough for Ritchie, it's good enough for
    me!

"It's State of the Art!"  "But it doesn't work!"  "That IS
the State of the Art!"

Alternatively:  "If it worked, it wouldn't be research!"

The only problem is, outside of the demented heads of the
Unix weenies, Unix is neither State of the Art nor research!

If there's one thing which truly pisses me off, it is the
attempt to pretend that there is anything vaguely "academic"
about this stuff.  I mean, can you think of anything closer
to hell on earth than a "conference" full of unix geeks
presenting their oh-so-rigourous "papers" on, say, "SMURFY:
An automatic cron-driven fsck-daemon"?

I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;
anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)
attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor has
no clothes.  The problem is a generation of swine -- both
programmers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unix
comes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularly
susceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.
(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionary
Soviet emigres.)

These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believing
that not only is better possible, but that better could have
once existed in the world before driven out by worse.  Well,
perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for some
incidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labs
or Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,
alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn't
expressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only we
paid more heed to the true, original strains of the unix
creed!)
                                                   
       In particular, I would like to see such an article
   separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design
   flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation
   bugs.

My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of the
material which is the subject of this list, is that the two
are inseparable.  The "fundamental design flaw" of unix is
an -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is good
enough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of users
and programmers should be hostage to the convenience or
laziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one's
time should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledge
should be regarded as provisional at best and expendable at
a moment's notice.

My view is that flaming about some cretin using a
fixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just as
much about unix as pointing out that this operating system
of the future has a process scheduler out of the dark ages
or a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or system
calls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)


The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much as
it is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.
Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure are
revealed to us through any examination of the minutiae of
any implementation, especially when we remember that one
cornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really no
more than the sum of its individual parts.  (Puny tools for
puny users.)




And speaking of revealing patterns of abuse through
observation of detail, has anybody considered that unix
geeks might be Adult Children or Survivors or be permanently
In Recovery?  Perhaps they were sodomised by an awk at a
young age, leading to a parodoxical attachment to the agent
of their humiliation?  If we could persuade them them to
spend all their time attending pop-psych workshops in the
woods ("Fire in the John"), beating drums and invoking the
shade of Dennis Ritchie, we could keep them away from their
keyboards...

>>877425 (OP)

Congratulations. You've just ensured that he will never, ever stop posting the Unix haters stuff here. I don't personally care, but you do, and your thread is counterproductive.

I have faith that someday, even retards like you will figure out that the best way to handle things you don't like online is just to ignore them until they go away. Or ignore them even if they don't. Either way, just ignore them.

>>877462

>bullshit that has no logical explanation

Yeah I can relate. Trying to do asynchronous I/O on Linux with anything that's not a socket is fucking painful. User space libraries just wrap the whole thing up on top of threads and call it a day.

Why the FUCK can't I just give the kernel a buffer and go do something else while it somehow copies X bytes into it off of some I/O source, and also get a file descriptor back so I can epoll it to check if it's completed? Why the fuck does this have to be so hard? Holy fucking shit.

Also, do you have an answer for how to handle SIGSEGV properly? I gave up.

>UNIX won over LISP

retards vs retards

>>877470

>async IO requires either sockets or threads

Well gee sucks that you can't use that thing... what was it? Oh right there isn't such thing, it's all wrapped around threads or sockets somehow.

>how to handle a segfault properly

Hue.

>>877470

>what is AIO

>>877470

What a very particular issue, you want to bloat the kernel with some novice garbage like that? Besides, that's not what the Unix haters mean, because Unix is WAY better than anything DEC or VAX at any kind of I/O

>>877518

>async IO is a "very particular issue".

Are you fucking kidding me? This is basic shit.

>>877511

You know UNIX was and has always been a corporate thing right.

>>877521

UNIX is more than a system, it is a design philosophy. Despite nay-sayers like Xah Lee that claim the philosophy was only buzz words and advertising, the UNIX way is fundementally beautiful. All these UNIX Haters seem to think that SystemV and BSD4 are UNIX proper, and are critiquing UNIX as a whole instead of the individual system. Other complaints by UNIX haters include X11. I don't like X11. Again, if you don't like UNIX use it's less-succesful successor Plan 9, which is essentially a do-over "Unix after Unix".

Unix as a "corporate thing" came long-after the original development when Bell Labs licensed it to multiple firms that corrupted it. Unix is beautiful, and men in suites didn't care to learn about it and only wanted quick-solution to problems already solved.

>>877530

>long-after the original development when Bell Labs licensed it to multiple firms that corrupted it

You mean that original development by the research division of a mega corp

>>877534

Bell Labs was a scientific field. You're the kind of guy that thinks that the National Science Foundation is a military operation, aren't you?

>>877536

>Bell Labs was a scientific field.

<The R&D divisions of companies don't count as corporate

>National Science Foundation is a military operation

NSF funds all kind of shit. I would call DARPA one though.

>>877462

Some day you will realize that barely anyone reads through copy-pasted walls of text that you invested zero of your own thinking in.

You are the equivalent of someone posting unrelated wikipedia articles in their full size to IRC channels - maybe that's where you belong.

>>877548

They were given enough money and liberty to not just be a corporate R&D lair.

>>877530

This. I've said it and I'll continue saying it, UNIX (and POSIX) is a poor implementation of the UNIX philosophy. This philosophy mainly being "tools that do one thing and do it well, that can be assembled to do greater things".

The two big problems are that the interchange format (\n delimited text) doesn't include a field concept and that there's a lot of duplicated functionalities (see all of the coreutils that can be easily supplanted by awk).

About X11, anyone who's not a newfag know it's not UNIX, but a DEC made cancer.

>>877592

>They were given enough money and liberty to not just be a corporate R&D lair.

Right so this corporate monolith does not count.

Reminder that GNU's not Unix.

>>877610

Reminder no GNU allowed on my system. BSD only.

>>877610

Also, Stallman doesn't care about Unix. He started GNU because Unix was good enough and popular enough.

>>877470

>>877518

Asynchronous I/O is simpler than synchronous. Real operating systems like VMS turn synchronous I/O into asynchronous, which also avoids the EINTR problem (more misdesigned bullshit conveniently found only in UNIX).

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

>A different approach is possible. It is apparent in the above that the system call has to be synchronous---that is, the calling process has to wait for the operation to complete. There is no reason for this: in the OpenVMS operating system, all I/O and other time-consuming operations are inherently asynchronous, which means the semantics of the system call is "start the operation, and perform one or more of these notifications when it completes" after which it returns immediately to the caller. There is a standard set of available notifications (such as set an event flag, or deliver an asynchronous system trap), as well as a set of system calls for explicitly suspending the process while waiting for these, which are a) fully restartable in the ITS sense, and b) much smaller in number than the set of actual time-consuming system calls.

>OpenVMS provides alternative "start operation and wait for completion" synchronous versions of all time-consuming system calls. These are implemented as "perform the actual asynchronous operation" followed by "wait until the operation sets the event flag". Any access to the process context during this time will see it about to (re)enter the wait-for-event-flag call.

>>877592

>They were given enough money and liberty to not just be a corporate R&D lair.

That makes UNIX look even worse because university researchers didn't make these mistakes. IBM and DEC didn't make these mistakes either. These UNIX "geniuses" have more money than other people but everything they make sucks a lot more. It would explain a lot if they spent it all on shilling.

>>877530

>UNIX is more than a system, it is a design philosophy. Despite nay-sayers like Xah Lee that claim the philosophy was only buzz words and advertising, the UNIX way is fundementally beautiful.

The philosophy is the fundamental problem. The broken commands are part of UNIX. Doing signals wrong is a part of the UNIX philosophy. Kernel panics and EINTR are part of the UNIX philosophy. Not fixing these problems is part of the UNIX philosophy. Multics, VMS, and Lisp machines have better design philosophies.

>Unix as a "corporate thing" came long-after the original development when Bell Labs licensed it to multiple firms that corrupted it. Unix is beautiful, and men in suites didn't care to learn about it and only wanted quick-solution to problems already solved.

UNIX has always sucked. The older versions sucked even more. BSD and System V were attempts to make it not suck as much.

You'll remember unix "gurus" flaming about how evil and
repulsive and wrong file-systems with versions are (about as
wrong and evil as they claimed "shared" libraries to be, as
an example.)

More way retro progress from the avant-garde boys at the
phone company.

Oh, and now you know why your Sun loses your work all the
time -- its that "translucent" filesystem.

    I don't know if Minow is committing the hagiolatry one
associates with the typical weenix unie, but I really feel
that any further mention of the reputed tear-inspiring
beauty, simplicity, symmetry, economy, etc of "V7" (or
whatever) Unix should be cause for immediate and permanent
expulsion from present company.

    I've seen quite a number of allusions to some downward
fall of unix even in this forum.  Let's get this straight
once an for all: Unix was flawed from conception.  Its
entire New-Jerseyist philosophy is flawed.  In fact, its
entire "philosophy" is a Source of Evil in the Modern World.

    THERE WAS AND IS NO FALLING-OFF FROM A WORLD OF
UNDIVIDED LIGHT.  THERE WAS NO GREAT PURE, PRIMORDIAL,
PRELAPSARIAN UNIX.  The Unix you see, with which you
struggle, which you curse, is not a diseased and reduced
remnant, but is itself the agent of disease and reduction.

    How can one lose sight of that?

>>877698

>The philosophy is the fundamental problem. The broken commands are part of UNIX. Doing signals wrong is a part of the UNIX philosophy. Kernel panics and EINTR are part of the UNIX philosophy. Not fixing these problems is part of the UNIX philosophy.

That's where you're wrong and why every sane anon just laugh at your retardation. See jewpedia for more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Origin). Like I said, only point 2 is partly retarded (don't structure your output, hurr!).

>>877698

Look man I am one of the people that agrees with you, but don't post this bullshit wall of text quotes from multiple other people.

>>877701

Those all suck except for Eric Raymond's rules, which actually describe the ITS philosophy because he said "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the ITS philosophy."

My ideal OS would follow the ITS Rules of Modularity, Clarity, Composition, Separation, Simplicity, Parsimony, Transparency, Robustness, Representation, Least Surprise, Silence, Repair, Economy, Generation, Optimization, Diversity, and Extensibility exactly as described, and UNIX would be good if those rules actually described it, but they don't.

>>877702

Every single quote is true.

    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.

YAAAARRGGGH!!!

If you would be gracious enough to identify this, um, I
believe the proper term is "loser", then we might have the
opportunity to clarify our philosophical differences.

    Maybe it was on someone's calendar to fix, but they
never see it because they can't run the program either.

    Hmm.  I used to think the strength of lisp machine tools
came from the fact that the developers actually used them
regularly in their work and depended on them in order to
develop everything they were going to need in the next
generation system.  That is, I though that there was a
causal link between using your own tools and making them
better.

    But maybe it's not whether you use your own tools that
makes them good, but rather that the goodness or badness of
your tools is just magnified over time by continuing to use
them.  That would explain a lot of things about Unix...

>>877631

>He started GNU because Unix was good enough and popular enough.

literally wat.

>>877755

Unix was usable (in the broadest sense of the word), popular, and modular in a way that made it easier to replace it one part at a time.

Stallman doesn't like Unix's design, but he doesn't hate it enough to avoid it. He did make Emacs as a sort of sanctuary away from Unix.

>>877746

>Every single quote is true.

DON'T FUCKING POST BOOKS WORTH OF TEXT ON THIS IMAGE BOARD THAT TAKE UP THE WHOLE FUCKING SCREEN JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE NO ONE READS THEM

>>877755

Stallman's goal was not a UNIX clone, but a Free as in Freedom system from the get-go. We all know this, you are the odd one out. Had he started in the 90's, GNU would probably be an MS-DOS or NT clone. He chose UNIX because of his previous experience in it, and the fact that uNIX was the popular system of the University Culture in 1984. I wish Stallman realized the beauty of the design philosophy as well, but that's anicent history now. Thankfully, since Stallman's GNU philosophy has pretty much succeeded there's not longer a need to rush its elements. Now, that pretty much the whole system is done (que GNU Herd joke) the developers are focusing on code quality. it is an observable change. The system has been adopted, and we are free-er. Now it's time to make it nicer.

>>877462

Please start using same name in every thread so I can ignore your mentally ill opinions. Take your meds.

>>877816

It's probably just some 15 year old on Mount Stupid who found the Unix-Hater's Handbook and Usenet, and thinks that the UNIX-Haters are the only true people.

>>877829

>It's probably just some 15 year old on Mount Stupid who found the Unix-Hater's Handbook and Usenet, and thinks that the UNIX-Haters are the only true people.

The UNIX weenies are a great example of Mount Stupid. People on Mount Stupid blame the users instead of the OS because they don't have enough knowledge to tell why UNIX sucks. They can't tell whether UNIX signals are better or worse than Multics signals or whether VMS I/O is better or worse than UNIX EINTR and I/O.

Before Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you think it's stupid.

When you're on Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you read all the man pages and you memorize all the trivia about every option and ioctl and "impress" everyone with your knowledge of switch "scope" and 0099 actually being an octal number and other bullshit.

After Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you know all the man pages and you memorize all the trivia about every option and ioctl and warn everyone with your knowledge of switch "scope" and 0099 actually being an octal number and other bullshit and you think it's stupid.

    Of course, used to the usual unix weenie response of
"no, the tool's not broken, it was user error" the poor user
sadly (and incorrectly) concluded that it was human error,
not unix braindamage, which led to his travails.

>>877611

>t. MacOS user

>>877918

So you are a 15 year old high-school student? I'm not hearing no. Have you any experience whatsoever other than "This person who was somebody to three people said something in 1992 and it was published in a book. It must be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I read him."

>>877918

Dude, you might have a good point or two, the problem is that you shit your opinions all over every thread and use very pompous language in the process.

The pompous language makes me hate you and the spam makes me hate your opinions.

Just cool your jets, dude.

Unix is kiked