▶ No.899353>>901383
Spot on. I only use brutal software.
▶ No.899355>>899624 >>899836
>>899342 (OP)
Uriel considered himself harmful in the end.
▶ No.899359>>899360 >>899361
▶ No.899360>>899836
>>899359
Uriel died because he considered himself harmful.
▶ No.899361
>>899359
something something freedoms something...
▶ No.899405>>899420 >>899430
>>899342 (OP)
His arguments boiled down to quotation mining and calling everything he didn't like "harmful". I dislike how he threw many different kinds of things, such as 1. licenses, 2. applications, 3. servers and libraries *and 4. protocols into big category: harmful things. A balanced philosopher would have had enough ontological instict to keep those 4 separate and would would have made his own argument against these harmful things instead of quote mining dead computer scientists out-of-context. This is not to say I disagree with everything he said, but making a list is not an argument, it's at best an opinion.
<Harmful things: Common Lisp
<More pleasant alternatives: Scheme R5RS
This made me miss him a lot more.
* I think we should judge software libraries/servers different from applications that users interact with. Bloat in a library is bad and should be eliminated but an application is meant to provide users with an experience, so adding things used by only 0.1% isn't as mad as in a library. The average user editing spreadsheets in LibreOffice calc isn't going to learn programming just to add functionality. The point is that the debate about how a library should be is different from how an application should be.
▶ No.899417>>899420 >>899430 >>899542 >>899678 >>899739
The list was updated, good to see.
>Scheme R5RS instead of Common Lisp
Oh, yeah! A shame R6RS went full retarded.
Being simplistic should not be attributed only to Uriel, though. Even back in the Multics days, when Unix was born, ITS was designed because Multics was too bloated/complicated.
Rob Pike commented in 2000 how Unix was not only dead, but smelling as well, but we still using Linux and BSD systems, we're stuck with them.
I work with some tech buzz word seeking faggots that love web apps and never heard about Plan 9 (What? Unix had a successor?) . When I showed them (running in a VM), they didn't care about the possibilities of having all resources managed as files and easily distributed in the network.
Today's developer think that the WEB is the tool to close the gaps and to share even when you have a shit ton of frameworks, browsers, JS libraries, etc. They can't grasp the simplicity of 9P.
▶ No.899420>>899426
>>899417
>>899405
>take the universal language for computation
>lets design a standard by committee
I swear the only good thing that came out of Common Lisp was CLOS. CLOS is pretty fucking cool.
For all other things that actually matter, R7RS is with us.
▶ No.899426
>>899420
For things that actually matter where you want to rewrite everything from scratch every fucking time like a retard instead of using a library because your language makes it so easy to shoot yourself in the foot making an ecosystem is impossible
▶ No.899430>>899432 >>899678
>>899405
>>899417
what's the solution? what should people be working on?
it might sound crazy but if a good team of people actually worked on a new OS they COULD build it. Hobbyists build shitty OSs all the time, it isn't unrealistic for some people with a shared vision to build a decent one. What are some examples of good stuff to study and learn from?
▶ No.899432>>899434 >>899678
>>899430
OS layer does not actually matter that much. Everything is cheaply virtualized at this point. HTTP and JSON can be used for pretty much anything and are simple text protocols.
▶ No.899434>>899438
>>899432
So we should look into unikernels or what?
▶ No.899438>>899439
>>899434
Of course not. Don't worry about the OS. Let it manage your hardware and resources. You concentrate on getting your useful tools built.
▶ No.899464
>>899439
Its going to be run on Intel anyways. Your memory is already fucked. No OS hacks will save you.
▶ No.899528
▶ No.899542
>>899417
>Multics
Oh boy i know where this thread is going now.
▶ No.899564>>899566 >>899668
I can't take anyone who recommends Ed as a text editor seriously.
▶ No.899566>>899643 >>899673 >>899679
>>899564
Then I guess you don't take any of the people at Bell Labs seriously; they exclusively used ed before Pike invented sam and acme. Try using ed for small edits, it's surprisingly usable.
▶ No.899569
>>899342 (OP)
You the fag posting on Lukes forum?
▶ No.899620>>899658 >>900631
>>899342 (OP)
>AES 265 more harmful than AES with less bit keys
Why? Can someone enlighten me?
▶ No.899624>>899836
▶ No.899633>>899844
>harmful: emacs, vim
>replacement: ed
Nice meme, m8.
▶ No.899643
>>899566
Unix was a much smaller system that was completely feasible to edit with ed.
▶ No.899656
>>899342 (OP)
>openbsd
>not MINIX with netbsd userland
▶ No.899658>>900631
>>899620
I also wish to know about this
▶ No.899668
>>899564
I can't take anyone who recommends anything other than gedit seriously.
▶ No.899673
>>899566
There wasn't much choice of what kind of editor back in the 70's when a lot of people were using hardcopy teletypes. Even CP/M came with something similar to ed.
I don't know why someone would want to use ed as main editor today (which his list seems to imply). It's a lot nicer to edit in vi, and it's not much bigger than ed.
▶ No.899678>>899681 >>899682 >>899795 >>899803 >>900136 >>900403
>>899417
ITS is simpler than Multics, but that doesn't make it more similar to UNIX. The UNIX-Haters were mostly Multics, ITS, and Lisp machine programmers and users who understood why UNIX sucked.
>>899430
>What are some examples of good stuff to study and learn from?
Multics, VMS, the Lisp machines, and various mainframe systems.
>>899432
>OS layer does not actually matter that much.
The OS is the second most important thing after the hardware. "Doesn't matter" is another way of saying it sucks.
What I find disgusting about UNIX is that it has *never*
grown any operating system extensions of its own, all the
creative work is derived from VMS, Multics and the
operating systems it killed.
Hell, Unix even -encourages- this phenomenon. Contrast what
happens on ITS or a Lisp Machine or Multics when a program
error happens, with what happens on Unix. On ITS, Lisp
Machines or Multics your program suspends and you are given
the opportunity to debug the problem and perhaps fix it and
proceed. You are given the chance to assign some blame. On
Unix -- *blam* -- core dumped. -Maybe- you can debug it,
but you certainly can't proceed, so why bother? Ignore that
(huge) core dump file and move on to your next task.
Note that users -like- this behavior. No kidding. Ask half
the graduate students at MIT these days -- they -hate- the
Lisp Machine debugger. All those blasted -choices-. All
those explainations and questions. They don't want to know
who to blame -- all they want to know is that it what they
were doing didn't work so they can try something else.
So if I want to -think- about who to blame for my problems,
I'll go use a Lisp Machine (or an ITS or a Multics). But
these days I use Unix, where I don't have to think.
▶ No.899679
>>899566
They used because there was no other option. Ed is like that not because "muh UNIX way" or "muh le bloat XDD" but to work around technical limitations.
Ed is barely unusable, and there's no reason to use it in 1980s, let alone the XXI Century.
▶ No.899681
>>899678
>The OS is the second most important thing after the hardware.
Yeah its so important. Not like I can compile my code to run on one of 5 different options.
▶ No.899682>>899698
>>899678
EVERY FUCKING TIME. CITE IT FUCK YOU. BLOCK QUOTE SPAM BULLSHIT.
▶ No.899698>>899741
>>899682
There's nothing to quote. Those are just shitposts from some ancient newsgroups and probably some bits from The UNIX-HATERS Handbook.
▶ No.899739
>>899417
R6RS was a necessary stepping stone to formalizing a scheme dialect with a focus on modules, compilation, and exposed the core issues with procedural macros.
I can ignore r6rs thanks to racket, but the complexity of r6rs made scheme simpler for large-scale software.
R5RS implies a full run-time with an compiler/evaluator like Common Lisp for even "hello world"; it was more dynamic than it needed to be.
▶ No.899741>>899758
>>899698
>There's nothing to quote
They came from somewhere. Include a url to an email archive, or even "from X email list", or "from the unix haters handbook"
▶ No.899758>>899763 >>899800
>>899741
Citing these things is the same as citing an anonymous opinion on a message board.
▶ No.899763
>>899758
>citing a book is the same thing as citing autistic nocodez on 8chan
lmao xD good 1 bro
▶ No.899800
>>899758
If there was anything worth citing on these piece of shit imageboards we would demand the same standard
▶ No.899803
>>899678
>What I find disgusting about UNIX is that it has *never* grown any operating system extensions of its own, all the creative work is derived from VMS, Multics and the operating systems it killed.
WHAT FUCKING YEAR WAS THIS WRITTEN HOLY SHIT
▶ No.899841>>899844
>>89963
Vim has a gigantic codebase, and people also have to add tons of plugins to it. Emacs is more minimal than vim (and that's saying something).
▶ No.899844
▶ No.899845
>>899342 (OP)
>harmful software.
More like stop coding harmful software.
▶ No.899851>>899854
>>899342 (OP)
>harmful
That's not even a well-defined term. Harmful[to what?][to whom][in what context?][from what point of view?][to what extent?][to what end?][citation needed]
▶ No.899853
Most things that are harmful to a certain party are not universally harmful. Moreover, often "harmfulness" is a characteristic of a zero-sum game, where positive harmfulness to one of the participants is equivalent to negative harmfulness (i.e. benefit) of the other participant (example: a predator hunting down prey is harmful to the prey, but beneficial to the predator).
▶ No.899854
>>899851
Harmful is defined right under the "Harmful stuff" section.
▶ No.900052>>900121
"Eunuchs" and the C(rap) programming language are harmful.
▶ No.900121
>>900052
That better be bait.
▶ No.900136>>900403
>>899678
Define PCLSRing for me right now without looking it up or forever forsake pasting unix-hater's handbook in these threads.
▶ No.900320
>>900262
If you reserve space on the drive you'll get an alert in your syslog when it's full.
Literally no reason to use df at all in that scenario.
▶ No.900328>>900334 >>900340
How the fuck is xml harmful ? - just text with element markers for easy processing
▶ No.900334>>900347
>>900328
One of the things people forget about the harmful software thing is that the site actually has subsections for certain ones.
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/
▶ No.900340
>>900328
>just text
You haven't seen MS Office XML have you?
▶ No.900347>>900349 >>900654
>>900334
glorious image. Good summary of XML.
>R5RS
recently getting into lisp myself. good place to start?
I agree on the C++ (harmful) and C (less harmful) classification. After using C and assembly since the 1980s. C++ combined with Qt is useful though. Tk and Tcl are actually kind of shit. Amateur-tier tools.
▶ No.900349>>900398 >>900649
>>900347
>I agree on the C++ (harmful) and C (less harmful) classification.
What about Rust?
▶ No.900398>>900641
>>900349
>C
>Less harmful
I just love having to constantly manually cast void* pointers to use literally any generic data structure.
▶ No.900403>>900604
>>899678
>ITS is simpler than Multics, but that doesn't make it more similar to UNIX.
I just used ITS as an example to show that simplicity is not only related to UNIX, there was no claim that both are similar.
>>900136
Not the same guy, but I just read [1] and I understood most of the PC lusering problem, but is it still applicable today? I mean, CPU are so godamn fast compared to PDP-10 days, what are the odds of your process being caught in the middle of a syscall?
In the mentioned article there's "The Benefits of PCLSRing", but it doesn't look like all the complexity of having adaptable syscalls are worth the implementation.
Also, you saying "without looking it up" is a bullshit proposition. How am I supposed to learn something without studding it?
[1]http://fare.tunes.org/tmp/emergent/pclsr.htm
▶ No.900438>>900582
>>900262
Why not read up on the df source code and figure out how it works? Hell, just run strace on the command, it will tell you exactly how it gets its information.
▶ No.900447>>900455 >>900640 >>900706
So why did Plan9 not take off? Distributed computing sounds exactly like the next step. Networks are getting fast enough where I could foresee some sort of OS that automatically shares resources in the network to help it's own computing power.
Just imagine how many offices have quad cores running Microsoft Word and a radio station while sitting idle 95% of the time.
▶ No.900455>>900706
>>900447
Because of licensing issues, and the fact that it was never properly released to the general public until the late 90s - something else to note is that Bell Labs has a severe case of NIH syndrome (which is why he lists sed 11q as something you should be using instead of head). If Bell Labs had just licensed it from the start under an MIT license (and given it _properly_ to the public) - we'd be using it today.
▶ No.900491
▶ No.900582
>>900438
>just reimplement df
how can you say this without realizing you're admitting UNIX is flawed.
▶ No.900604
>>900403
Without looking it up is for people pasting unix hater's handbook without understanding it, you're more than welcome to learn things. PCLSRing might still be useful, you can still catch things in a syscall, especially with all the IO bound programs, but you have to design your entire system around it. It was fine when you have a bunch of experts working on a single system (ITS, lisp machines) but you could just shit out a unix port in a few weeks.
Also look at that page: "just check the program counter to see if the file's been written!" no one does shit like that anymore if they can help it
▶ No.900631>>900648
▶ No.900640>>900642 >>900643
>>900447
>Networks are getting fast enough
They aren't. Local network data throughput is still lower than HDD to CPU data throughput.
▶ No.900641>>900642 >>900643 >>900674
>>900398
>I want generic data structures in C
Do you also want to embed assembly in PHP?
▶ No.900642>>900643
▶ No.900648
>>900631
>The key schedule for 256-bit keys is not as well designed as the key schedule for 128-bit keys. And in recent years there has been substantial progress in turning those design problems into potential attacks on AES 256.
I thought it was the same encryption with different bit keys but each seems to be a completely own encryption.
That was a pretty informative article. Thx.
▶ No.900649
>>900349
>Rust > C++
That's some delusion you got there.
▶ No.900653
>>900643
>twice the same trip is samefag
Genius
▶ No.900654
>>900347
>After using C and assembly since the 1980s.
This is some tryhard. You just don't know how to fit in, do you?
▶ No.900668>>900672 >>900706
Using plan 9 is kinda lonely on a single terminal.
I end up reading /sys/doc/ for hours, forget everything I read until next time I'm so frustrated by linux I consider learning plan 9.
Uriel came across as a slightly insincere zealot during the 4/g/ era of shitposting, but the further I dig into the depths of modern programming, he becomes less naive and more prophetic.
His "extremism" indicated he understood the overton window, and how to stand on the shoulder's of giants.
Uriel was right.
"considered harmful" is European ergonomics applied to intellectual activity,
it is about wasting less time in front of a screen, yet accomplishing more than a glorified pajeet that spends 80 hours a week slaving over culture destroying software (faceberg, tindr, elite financial software, drm, gps tracking, mobile spyware, data mining / marketing).
▶ No.900672
>>900668
I've been thinking about using the "Styx on a brick" (robot control through 9p) at work. I could easily pull it off and I don't think it would add too much overhead
▶ No.900674>>900684
>>900641
Why have any pointer types at all? A pointer is a pointer. Everything should just be void*. Anything else is retarded high level language bullshit that detracts from the hardware / language relationship.
The absolute state of cfags.
▶ No.900684>>900689
>>900674
>harvard architectures don't exist
▶ No.900689>>900690
>>900684
Harvard has nothing to do with the difference between int* and char*.
▶ No.900690>>900691 >>900747
>>900689
Correct, which is the actual biggest flaw with C pointers that was somehow ignored by almost all successor languages because they're too busy writing user-facing garbage.
▶ No.900691>>903009
>>900690
>because they're too busy writing user-facing garbage.
Rust works just fine on an arduino
▶ No.900706>>900718 >>900719 >>900724 >>900925
>>900447
>So why did Plan9 not take off? Distributed computing sounds exactly like the next step.
Because it sucks and because distributed computing was a huge thing in the 80s, not a Plan 9 invention. There were VAXclusters, Lisp machines, and a huge number of distributed OSes, conferences, and papers in the 80s. Plan 9 was an attempt to ride the bandwagon by turning UNIX into a "new" OS.
>>900455
>something else to note is that Bell Labs has a severe case of NIH syndrome
That explains why all that crap sucks.
>>900668
>His "extremism" indicated he understood the overton window, and how to stand on the shoulder's of giants.
He understood how to close the Overton window by not even mentioning what the giants did. There's no mention of how many of the "good" things in UNIX are just bad implementations of better things in Multics. Most of the suckless "harmful" and "less harmful" things are UNIX-related and UNIX culture bullshit. Everything that Multics, VMS, and Lisp machines do that UNIX doesn't do or does differently is outside the box, but none of that is on the list because there's no "not harmful" category.
>The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy's possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public in order to move and/or expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.
That's what Wikipedia says about it. I want to educate on the topic of Lisp machines, Multics, VMS, mainframes, and so on. Right now, writing an OS in C++ is at the "radical" level. Writing an OS in anything else is "unthinkable".
I think RP said it best: "UNIX is not only dead - it's
starting to smell bad"
Aha! That explains why his new system is called Plan 9 from
Bell Labs.
The original Plan 9 from Outer Space was a fiendish alien
plot to take over the earth using an army of resurrected
corpses (who were not only dead but were starting to smell
bad).
We'd better watch out.
Section 30.02 of _Unix Power Tools_ by O'Reilly & Associates says
... /ispell/, originally written by Pace Willison ...
but hey, I was there when Pace ported the ITS SPELL program
to C. Sure I am grateful to have a few reminders (^Z is
another one) of bygone glories around, but let's give credit
where credit is due! Legend tells of a Chinese Emperor who
ordered books burned so all knowledge would be credited to
his reign. I guess the subsequent generation of scholars
were a lot like the Weenix Unies of today.
Yesterday Rob Pike from Bell Labs gave a talk on the
latest and greatest successor to unix, called Plan 9.
Basically he described ITS's mechanism for using file
channels to control resources as if it were the greatest
new idea since the wheel.
Amazing, wasn't it? They've even reinvented the JOB device.
In another couple of years I expect they will discover the
need for PCLSRing (there were already hints of this in his
talk yesterday).
I suppose we could try explaining this to them now, but
they'll only look at us cross-eyed and sputter something
about how complex and inelegant that would be. And then
we'd really lose it when they come back and tell us how they
invented this really simple and elegant new thing...
▶ No.900718
>>900706
>Unsourced block quotes
FUCK YOU CITE IT
▶ No.900719
>>900706
Stop taking up half my fucking screen with block quotes. Multiple times a day you do this. Every post you gotta include 3 fucking large blocks.
▶ No.900724>>900728
>>900706
>I want to educate on the topic of Lisp machines, Multics, VMS, mainframes, and so on.
Why not make a thread about it here? And by that I don't mean just citing random quotes from unix haters handbook.
▶ No.900728>>900747
>>900724
>Why not make a thread about it here? And by that I don't mean just citing random quotes from unix haters handbook.
random OUTDATED quotes. 90% of the shit he spams doesn't even have relevance in $CURRENT_YEAR
▶ No.900747>>900748
>>900728
and the quotes are from retards from the past too. As if the current day retards just weren't enough.
>>900690
This lies in how C works. C uses the pointer type to identify what, how large and where the memory is.
I agree that it would be interesting what would happen if the data was stored with the memory allocated what's behind the pointer but it would no longer be C.
All these faggots only inventing scripting langs these days piss me off. There are so many thing that haven't yet been tried or done but muhh I nigger I need garbage collection.
▶ No.900748
▶ No.900925>>900929 >>900964
>>900706
If you want to educate provide an actual alternativel. I don't see you suggesting any actual software, only bashing C and Unix, and not even making arguments, just asserting that they suck. Where's your precious Lisp machine OS?
▶ No.900964
>>900925
I agree. While it is true that Multics had ideas that Unix used (Data channels were like pipes) - pipes are far, far easier to use. I think Bell Labs also considered Multics a seminal advancement for OS design anyhow - it isn't like they hated it. That said, I don't know if Multics used plain text as a universal language - this happened to be a great idea.
▶ No.901374>>901377
How are we going to improve things? and dont tell me just fuck around with plan9 in a VM. that's not a solution.
▶ No.901377>>901382
>>901374
rewrite unix in rust under a cuck license
▶ No.901381
We should all be running everything on the JVM by now anyway.
▶ No.901382>>914357
>>901377
>GPL
>Communism
>Working for free
AYEEEEE. Anything but selling your software and exploiting the masses is cucked.
▶ No.901383
>>899353
I had the poster from this hanging on my wall during my teenage years. The warrior goddess with the armoured tits was my ideal female.
Ice cream!
▶ No.901388>>901390
>>899342 (OP)
How viable would my job market be if I only dedicated myself to everything in the second column of this picture?
▶ No.901390
>>901388
You'd put a bullet in your head.
▶ No.901394>>901396
>>899342 (OP)
>pic
>"This is opinion"
▶ No.901396>>901400 >>901404
>>901394
Who is this piece of shit and why do you keep spamming him everywhere in 8chan?
▶ No.901400>>901403
>>901396
A /pol/ eceleb, probably a lolbert. I think he's called Molyneux?
▶ No.901404>>901405
>>901396
>not knowing who Molyneux is
>implying that literally only a single person is posting Molyneux memes on 8chan
▶ No.901405>>901407
>>901404
>you have to know my favorite youtuber
I assume these are made and spread by literal shills, like that aichan which is not even an ai.
▶ No.901407
>>901405
>implying I watch Molyneux
▶ No.901923>>901926 >>901955
When did you realize OSX is the least harmful OS ever made?
▶ No.901926>>901930 >>901958
>>901923
They don't use OSX. They just use Mac hardware.
▶ No.901930>>901958
>>901926
Using OSX with plan9port = using OSX.
▶ No.901955>>901960
>>901923
Two of them look like textbook numale soyboy faggots so what they say is irrelevant.
▶ No.901958>>902028
>>901926
Only kids on /g/ install Linux on a mac
>>901930
U high?
▶ No.901960
>>901955
You can program much better than them, right?
▶ No.902028
>>901958
>Only kids on /g/ install Linux on a mac
You're right, real developers just use actual macs with OSX.
▶ No.902173>>902187 >>902248
Why didn't you stop them, /tech/?
▶ No.902187>>902247 >>902299
>>902173
I like Linux because it's free software that works for me (TM).
▶ No.902247>>902248
>>902187
Linux isn't free software, pleb.
▶ No.902248>>902299
▶ No.902299>>903015 >>903018
>>902187
>>902248
It isn't :^(
I tested my Gentoo PC (I have AMD APU) with vrms and vrms --strict.
▶ No.903009
>>900691
You can run java and IIRC python on arduino. Not sure exactly a high bar.
▶ No.903015
>>902299
>glibc-2.25-r11
>non-free
what
▶ No.903018>>903020
▶ No.903020
>>903018
sram na tripfagów
▶ No.903286>>903298
>When I was on Plan 9, everything was connected and uniform. Now everything isn't connected, just connected to the cloud, which isn't the same thing. And uniform? Far from it, except in mediocrity. This is 2012 and we're still stitching together little microcomputers with HTTPS and ssh and calling it revolutionary. I sorely miss the unified system view of the world we had at Bell Labs, and the way things are going that seems unlikely to come back any time soon.
>Emacs or vi?
Neither.
When I was a lad, I hacked up the 6th Edition ed with Tom Duff, Hugh Redelmeier, and David Tilbrook to resuscitate qed, the editor Ken Thompson wrote for CTSS that was the inspiration for the much slimmer ed. (Children must learn these things for themselves.) Dennis Ritchie has a nice history of qed at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/qed.html> .
I liked qed for one key reason: it was really good at editing a number of files simultaneously. Ed only handled one file at a time.
Ed and qed were command-driven line editors designed for printing terminals, not full-screen displays. After I got to Bell Labs, I tried out vi but it could only handle one file at a time, which I found too limiting. Then I tried emacs, which handled multiple files but much more clumsily than qed. But the thing that bothered me most about vi and emacs was that they gave you a two-dimensional display of your file but you had only a one-dimensional input device to talk to them. It was like giving directions with a map on the table, but being forced to say "up a little, right, no back down, right there, yes turn there that's the spot" instead of just putting your finger on the map.
(Today, emacs and vi support the mouse, but back in 1980 the versions I had access to had no support for mice. For that matter, there weren't really many mice yet.)
So as soon as the Blit started to work, it was time to write an editor that used the mouse as an input device. I used qed (mostly) and emacs (a little) to write the first draft of jim, a full-screen editor that showed you text you could point to with a mouse. Jim handled multiple files very smoothly, and was really easy to use, but it was not terribly powerful. (Similar editors had been at Xerox PARC and other research labs but, well, children must learn these things for themselves.)
A few years later I took the basic input idea of jim and put a new ed-like command language underneath it and called it sam, a locally popular editor that still has its adherents today. To me, the proof of sam's success was that it was the first full screen editor Ken Thompson liked. (He's still using it.) Here's the SP&E paper about sam from 1987: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/sam/sam.pdf.
A few years later, I decided the pop-up menu model for commanding an editor with a mouse was too restrictive, so I started over and built the much more radical Acme, which I'm using to write these answers. Here's the Acme paper: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme/acme.pdf
No wonder Uriel loved him so much.
▶ No.903298>>903300 >>903303 >>903305
>>903286
Why are you quoting a guy that looks like this, uses a mac, and spends his modern life shilling cloud services.
▶ No.903300>>903307
>>903298
It seems like modern middle-aged men take their declining testosterone very badly. Acme is a good editor, though.
▶ No.903303>>903307 >>903308
>>903298
Did you even read the first paragraph? he hates the cloud. The comment you're referring to is about local storage (and why he hates it) actually refers to his love for plan 9. With 9p, you can access a file server somewhere and it melds with your setup in a very homogeneous manner, unlike ssh. He spends his modern life shilling Go, which I've actually been learning recently - it is pretty decent. He uses Macs (and Linux) but he hates both, if plan9port didn't exist he'd probably go uriel.
▶ No.903305
>>903298
Do you even understand the context of what Pike is doing in that photo?
▶ No.903307>>904125
>>903303
>>903303
>>903300
so much butthurt smh. he shills cloud shit for google. he shills a GARBAGE COLLECTED language. he uses a mac. he "hates the cloud" but will cuck for it for the rest of his life for a couple bucks.
▶ No.903308>>903313 >>903758
>>903303
Pike doesn't hate "the cloud". What Pike hates is that the elegance of Plan 9 system is largely ignored by the world and that the systems we use today are mediocre in comparison to Plan 9.
▶ No.903313>>903315
>>903308
Yes the world is so mediocre compared to plan 9 when plan 9 is lacking basic functionality
▶ No.903315>>903317 >>903319
>>903313
It isn't. It is essentially a finished operating system - most people treat it like Unix and get burned. One of the most common complaints is lack of a shell history. But, why would you need a shell history when you can grep /dev/text? I don't think you've ever given Plan 9 a real chance.
▶ No.903317
>>903315
>It isn't.
I meant it "It doesn't" as in, "It doesn't lack basic functionality" - you just never gave it a real shot.
▶ No.903319>>903324
>>903315
You think an "operating system" is the baseline? LOL. There are hundreds of working operating systems.
▶ No.903324>>903365
>>903319
I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Expound on what you mean by "baseline"
▶ No.903365>>903376
>>903324
It has no support for anything. There are hundreds of operating systems out there that are equally useless.
▶ No.903376>>903392
>>903365
What does "anything" mean to you? 9front supports a decent amount of hardware, and you can emulate linux binaries on i386. In terms of software there is not much to choose from, sure - but this goes to show the quality of the software.
▶ No.903392>>903394
>>903376
Where is firefox? Where is GIMP? Where is EVERYTHINGELSE.
▶ No.903394
>>903392
Do you know what "you can emulate Linux binaries" means?
http://jfloren.net/b/2012/4/27/0
▶ No.903396>>903411 >>903412
>903394
Yes I do, more than most people, which is why I know thats bullshit. "Emulate Linux Binaries" means you have a system that can deal with the Linux opcodes correctly. It does not mean GTK, QT, Firefox, GIMP, or anything else works.
▶ No.903411
>>903396
>GTK
Harmful.
>QT
Harmful.
>Firefox
Harmful.
>GIMP
Harmful.
Sounds like it's for the best, after all.
▶ No.903412
>>903396
Firefox/Opera works on my machine. To be fair, I don't care about those other things (and I mainly browse with Mothra anyways). I don't understand why you'd want to emulate anything other than a modern browser, because then you'd be treating 9front/Plan 9 just like a crappy Linux distro, which it isn't.
▶ No.903451>>903535 >>914357
I remember this video blowing my mind a long time ago.
▶ No.903535
>>903451
I love everything about plan9 except its asinine dependence upon a mouse
▶ No.903758>>903929 >>903984 >>904000
>>903308
>What Pike hates is that the elegance of Plan 9 system is largely ignored by the world and that the systems we use today are mediocre in comparison to Plan 9.
Plan 9 sucks. It's a modification of UNIX so they could ride the huge distributed computing bandwagon.
What I hate is that the elegance of Multics, Lisp machines, VMS, mainframes, and other good systems are largely ignored by the world and that UNIX, Linux, and Plan 9 in 2018 suck compared to systems from the 60s and 70s.
Subject: Once Again, Weenix Unies Reinvent History
Yesterday Rob Pike from Bell Labs gave a talk on the latest
and greatest successor to unix, called Plan 9. Basically he
described ITS's mechanism for using file channels to control
resources as if it were the greatest new idea since the
wheel.
There may have been more; I took off after he credited Unix
with the invention of the hierarchial file system!
What bothers me even more than how broken things are
compared to ten years ago, but how fast things seem to
be getting more broken.. Maybe it has something to do
with the baby boom.
Nah, there is just more. The same exact things that were
broken 10 years ago ARE STILL BROKEN. This is a major
problem in itself...
Unix weenies have been busy making new broken software
instead of fixing the old broken software.
Sigh.
▶ No.903929
>>903758
Would you please get a tripcode so that I can filter your spam permanently.
▶ No.903984>>904104
>>903758
I know you love to post quotes from the Unix Haters Handbook, which itself is a collection of quotes from Usenet back in the late 80's, early 90's. But remember, those are anecdotes, opinions; some of them do provide facts to back them up, but most are just complaints, it could be because fault configuration, hardware, whatever, it is not complete clear on the context of the book so you shouldn't take everything there seriously, but you just like to parrot ready made opinions so it suits you.
We know ITS had virtual devices that behaved transparently, can you ran ITS today? How about you tell us how your Lisp Machine is doing? Or how is your programming in PL/I going under Multics in an Intel/AMD processor?
Plan 9 is not widely used, but still runs on commodity hardware and many of its concepts are used everywhere else. Names-spaces? CGroups (less powerful, though), mounting in user space? FUSE! How about 9P in the Linux kernel? Oh, it's there.
▶ No.904000>>904119
>>903758
Nothing is elegant about a big fat lisp garbage collector
▶ No.904104>>904152
>>903984
Those might be only opinions, but they're usually spot on. Anyway when you look at typical Linux software today, most of it is pure garbage that doesn't even try to follow the halfass Unix philosophy. The bar is set so low that when you hear about better systems, you're incredulous that those could possibly exist. You were born in shit, see shit all around, and can't conceive that anything other than shit can possibly exist.
▶ No.904119>>904124
>>904000
>muh GC
Not an argument. UNIX sucks ass, and Lisp machines were on the right track.
▶ No.904124>>904129
>>904119
Even tcl doesn't need GC
▶ No.904125>>906192
>>903307
>garbage collected languages are bad because i said so
▶ No.904129>>906192
>>904124
That doesn't make garbage collected languages worse or better, and you ought to kill yourself.
▶ No.904147
>>899342 (OP)
>stop using AIR QUOTE harmful AIR QUOTE software
>D language listed as harmful
>never explained why
>your opinion was discarded, man
▶ No.904152
>>904104
If there aren't drivers for the system, the system doesn't exist. If the owners of the proprietary system died a long time ago, the system doesn't exist.
▶ No.905996
Reminder that this hero died for all your harmful sins.
▶ No.906192>>914357
>>904129
>>904125
>I want my program to freeze for milliseconds while memory gets reclaimed
▶ No.911021
>>899342 (OP)
Stop having shit for brains.
▶ No.914357
>>901382
Prohibiting commercial use of GPL'd software is a copyright/contract violation. This is just FUD. Also, the GPL does not prohibit you from charging for the software, only that you don't charge more for the source code than the binaries. Now apply yourself like pic related.
>>903451
Impressive!
>>906192
>what is compile-time garbage collection?
That said, virtually no research has been done on it.