/tech/ - Technology★

Unix shells suck. The shells of the various Lisp Machines were quite different. The Symbolics shell, later called "Dynamic Lisp Listener" allowed management of commands, completions, defaults, interactive help, etc.

See for example: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=o4-YnLpLgtk

The interactiveness of that Lisp Machine is quite a step up from what any typical *nix shell offers. The problem of that (GUI) approach: it wasn't very sophisticated on the text terminal side; actually, it was quite bad. For development one needed an extended Common Lisp (or Zetalisp), which was a bit too complex/difficult for many users.

Really, It's not even hate. Most Unix shells are just dumb. Many people like to use primitive text based UIs with lots of corner cases, this makes them appear intelligent for remembering obscure commands and obscure options without real UI help.

Take cp. The shell does not know the various options the command takes. The shell does not know what the types and the syntax of the options are. The shell does not know which options can be combined and which cannot. It can't prompt for shell options. It can't check the command syntax before calling it. It can't provide any help when the syntax is wrong. It can't deal with errors during command execution. There is no in-context help. It can't reuse prior commands other that just editing them on a textual base. The output of the command is just text and not structured data. There are an endless amount of problems. There *have* been attempts to address this by putting different user interfaces on top - for example, IBM provided an extensive menu based administration tool for AIX. You can try Lisp-based shells like scsh, clisp, esh or Emacs. But for the most part all these attempts still suffer from and don't escape the general issues.

Also, terminal emulators are bloated protocol.

>There is so much code that goes into making the graphical stuff happen for all those GUI programs, and as the code size increases, so does the risk of bugs. smol command line programs don't need all that stuff so theres less code within a single project to be buggy

This wouldn't be a problem if we could write GUIs in sane languages.

>>923849

>_<

>>923850

Sorry, that's just how it is. I know you like masturbating over "minimalism" (you did make all those threads on half/g/ after all) - but, you have to realize that C and *nix are primitive, broken, and bloated. Also, I'm not even the "lisp meanie" you're talking about in the OP.

Friendly reminder that virtual terminals may not be as fast as a GUI program.

xterm: 40fps

uxterm: 60fps

st: You can configure this

Since I have a 144Hz monitor, st is the only sensible option to go with.

>Terry Davis

While yes, he reinvented Symbolic's C Listener (but worse) which was sold for their LISP machines, at least his editor is a GUI. You can literally go into draw mode or whatever and draw graphics to embed into your document.

>>923849

Man, you always manage to find a way to stick your microdick in every conversation.

>>923858

Like I said - I'm not him. Really, I bet the people who denigrate him know nothing besides Linux; they assume that nothing better could have *ever* existed. Do you like mathematics? You should give Lisp a chance, even if you don't care about Lisp Machines.

>>923848 (OP)

Cute.

>>923849

Unix and its progeny are non-cute. I think the FS drivers are taking over where unix failed, automatically sanitizing filenames to force literals but goddamn why ever. Why still? Oh well thats fine.

Lisps are meh in every category but still cute, VMs aren't even single-language in 2018 though so you can have all of the cute langs you can interpret in small libraries.

>>923887

Just ignore lispfags, there is one here, they are all extremely autistic larpers with superiority complex yet they don't accomplish anything with their hallowed language ever.

bumpy!

<let's talk about the command line

<UNIX SHELLS SUCK

oh geez ok then I guess I'll learn lisp

>buys Land of Lisp

>starts reading

>implement this simple 'guess the number game'

>game is intended to be played at the REPL

>game interface is basically a commandline

what was even the point of this, lispfag?

>>924234

The Unix command line sucks. It's a very poor excuse for a REPL. Command lines don't have to suck, it's just that the Unix ones suck by design.

If Lisp's idealism and lack of utility puts you off, it may be worth experimenting with the Python REPL to see what a command line could be in a differently-designed system. I keep one open a lot of the time, and it's great for the things I can use it for, because it's capable of knowing what I'm doing.

A Unix shell has no idea what it's doing. It can tell when a command fails to start, and it can tell whether a command failed (but typically doesn't show you by default!), but not much else. The command has to do its own reporting. There's very little interoperability. After the process is launched the information flow back to the shell is basically limited to a single byte.

If I'm doing something in a Python REPL there are standardized protocols. A function that fails can leave inspectable state behind. There's an exception hierarchy. I can wrap tqdm around long loops. If I pass the wrong arguments I always get the same kind of message back, because the system for passing arguments is part of the system, not implemented ad hoc in a thousand different ways by all the different subsystems I use. It's integrated.

I almost exclusively run Unix-likes, so I don't know exactly what a well-designed operating system's shell would be like, but REPLs give me a glimpse.

>>924246

You're confusing scripting languages with gluing languages. Every "inconvenient" you're listing are just the point of sh: to glue every kind of executable with a minimalist compatibility interface; namely stdin/out/err and the exit status code.

Now, I wouldn't say no to something in between (maybe with better typing than awk style checking), but Python is NOT a gluing language (and it's shit).

>>924249

I know that's the intention of sh. I'm calling the intention of sh shit.

Python is not a gluing language, but it's possible for a system shell to be a lot more like a REPL.

normies will never accept the command line

grow up

>>924252

Didn't we have that in csh?

Minimalism is nice until it gets in the way of security and usability. Optimization of a system is the LAST thing that should be done, it is the LEAST important aspect of a software. The most important thing about software is that it is correct (i.e. as few bugs as possible). The second most important thing, that it fulfills its intended use cases, which includes being usable. The third most important thing, that it is secure. The last thing, that it is fast.

Defending UNIX "shells" because they are minimalist, is forgetting that they are not secure, and can easily even not execute correctly, which means they cannot fulfill their use cases. When a program fails all these three, it does not matter that it fails fast. It is broken.

Ask yourself: how many time have you had to look up the 'tar' man page, or googled it, before you were able to type the commands correctly on the first try? How many systems broke because an unwanted space turned a single string into two arguments?

What we need is a modern shell, that knows exactly what every program needs, and that won't even let you run the program if you don't give it the proper arguments. A shell where, if you want to terminate a string argument, you do it consciously. A shell that corrects you on the fly. That checks all permissions. Of course, that would also mean, stopping using programs that take in string arguments. Programs should take in typed arguments. You don't want to tar strings into a string, you want to tar a list of directories and files, into a file. You don't want to play a string, you want to play music. You don't want to run a string, you want to run a program. We shouldn't let individual programs decide of that, unless they absolutely want to.

When we have that modern shell, with these modern programs, we can talk about minimalism.

>>924319

Worse than that! DOS was the 80's, only 3x years ago. UNIX shells come straight out of the early 70's, designed from machines from the 60's.

>>924327

I agree, and you know UNIX truly sucks, when a Micro$oft product somehow manages to be better.

>>924310

>Ask yourself: how many time have you had to look up the 'tar' man page

Tar isn't posix, pax is (and it's simpler).

>How many systems broke because an unwanted space turned a single string into two arguments?

Valid complaint, IFS splitting of stuff is only a hack to emulate arrays. Still no that bad unless you're retarded or start doing some multiple levels of eval.

All of your other shit is just some idea guy bullshit. In the sense that it might seem cool, but sh is only supportable because it's that dumb. There's powershell for what you want. Now I'm not saying that sh is perfect or even good, but that you don't really know what's wrong with it (and I do, as someone who've written more POSIX sh than 99% of the tards here). First, you must fix the coreutils to allow secure output/input of tabular data. Then you can fix sh.

>>924329

Yup, coreutils must go. Even more, ELF, as we know it, must go. ld, as we know it, must go.

>>924255

Normies all used the command line until Windows 95 came out. Mac users excepted.

>>924336

Mac users were a large plurality, if not majority, of users in the 80's. By 1992, nearly no one used the command line anymore.

>>923850

not an argument

SUICIDE FOR ALL TRIPFAGS

>>924349

>tripfag is full of it

In 1992 most people were still using MS-DOS and while command.com is shit for a command line interface it was the standard.

Let's face it though, normies don't even use computers these days for the most part. They use phones for everything. Even college students are writing papers on their phones. Computer literacy is way down. Normies can wallow in shit for all I care.

>>923848 (OP)

This is offtopic, but I have to say it.

Dude, in some of your posts you make good points worth debating, but the way you write is so obnoxious that trying to actually developing the debate further is an exercise in futility. This is a shame, because you actually look like you got some background. This is my first and probably last time I'm quoting you directly.

Unfortunately the BO wants to keep trips around, this is the wrong type of incetive to some people.

>>923848 (OP)

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

UwU UwU

>>924399

>waaaah waaaaah people use trips on imageboards which were designed for use with trips waaaah

Get shrekt, faggot

>>924372

>Even college students are writing papers on their phones.

Yeah, no.

>Computer literacy is way down.

That's not a bad thing. Are people supposed to know all about computers if it's not their field? Do you know how literally everything you use every day works?

>>924487

We need an increase in both the averge AND standard dev. of literacy.

why aren't mods moderating this board?

>>924487

>That's not a bad thing. Are people supposed to know all about computers if it's not their field? Do you know how literally everything you use every day works?

Knowing how to do basic arithmetic and knowing how to solve a simple equation or knowing a bit about Newton's Laws doesn't make you a mathematician or a physicist. Neither does the ability to use a calculator. Knowing how to install an OS or the basics of programming or knowing how to use CLI programs doesn't make you a programmer, engineer, a computer scientist or a hacker. Computers are becoming more and more integral part of our lives. Yet, fewer and fewer people have even a basic grasp on how they work or how to use them. There isn't any excuse for this amount of ignorance. It's like not being able to read/write or not knowing how to do basic arithmetic. ofc people don't have to know everything about computers, but nowadays people should know more, instead of knowing less and less.

t. eri

>>924487

>That's not a bad thing. Are people supposed to know all about computers if it's not their field?

They indeed use it everyday, but the problem is that it's used to control their feeble mind (I doubt that not knowing how to build a house has the same consequences). Which is the point, they're not born with thirst for knowledge, hence why it's stupid to even try raising them out of the mud.

>Do you know how literally everything you use every day works?

I try.

Also, you're a big faggot, like the board owner enabling this bullshit.

How is this faggot still posting?

>>924613

The botnet is not just a /tech/ issue, it is a /pol/ issuse as well (Economics, Law, Bussiness). If you don't understand the basics of /pol/ you cannot undo the botnet.

1. Why can't small companies hava a choice

2. Why do big companies work with governement

3. Why can't open source solve everything

4. What is (((their))) agenda?

>>923876

>also stallman was a cutie back in the day, OwO

All I see is a yellow star, anon

>>924395

>implying bash can't do arrays

ever read TLDP, faggot?

>>924310

Minimalism is a meme, kinda like saying there are three genders or that men should learn to sexually prefer trannies and fat people. What's really being indicated is that today's young programmers are fucking retarded and don't know how to develop rich features, especially on the desktop. They are terrified of multithreading. Schools are making these kids stupid on purpose so that only AI will have the power in the end.

>>924696

>kinda like saying there are three genders or that men should learn to sexually prefer trannies and fat people

people who believe that stuff seem to promote the opposite of minimalism. A lot of javascript and bloated GUI GNOMEME and Electron-tier stuff.

I agree, that's why I exclusively use tmux and no X server. More functional than any poopy WM and there's literally no worthwhile program that won't run on a framebuffer or a terminal.

>>924892

what about a browser? that's one of the main things that would hold me back from doing the same. For now I use stuff like dwm, bspwm, or i3wm on GNU+Linux systems.

>>924900

There are many of them around but the main 3 seem to be Links2, Lynx and w3m.

>>923848 (OP)

>comfy

That moment you realize the fucktards have infested tech too. RIP

>>924903

oh yeah I knew about those, and use them sometimes if I just need a reader.

I meant web browsers that can actually display most websites and stuff.

I wish I didn't need full JS support and web rendering stuff on a regular basis, but sadly that's the world we live in.

I heard netsurf can run in a framebuffer, but it doesn't do JS yet.

>>924900

I used Lynx in DOS long ago, worked great. I had an NE2000 card and found some packet drivers for it on a repository called "SimtelNet", that I think was hosted on ftp.cdrom.com back then. Had a suite of tcp/ip tools for DOS, including arp, ping, tracert, telnet, ftp, and so on. Plus other various programs like Pine for meil and news.

For 8-bit computers, there's Contiki. Here it is running on an Apple IIGS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PowUYedShYQ

>>924929

It's the Emacs Web Wowser you fucking retarded, wannabe Emacs user. You have no clue how to use Emacs, and it shows, you troglodyte Arch babby poseur.

>>924581

It's the mod.

>>925093

THIS!

Something happened to /tech/ in the last 3 months or so. Trips started to pop from nowhere, how they're able to shitpost around with impunity may be a sign that they're related to the Board Owner, maybe they're even volunteers.

>>925169

/bl/ got nuked, so it''s only fair that /tech/ gets nuked too if cuteposter is a part of the board owner's inner circle.

>>925169

>>925184

Would make sense, makes sense since "OWO,UWU" faggatory posting started in Feb.

Thats bad.

>>924998

Long time ago you could get dial in BBS accounts with like unix shell terminals. Lynx too.

>>925184

Would not surprise me if it happens

theres should be rule that anyone who isnt ontopic gets cooldown for few hours

GET BACK ON TOPIC HOMOS

>>925297

No.

Also, most GNU utilities are filled with bloat compared to BSD versions.

>>925403

>what's the /minimal/ program for secure instant messaging?

try XMPP+OMEMO.

>I haven't tried netsurf yet. it's made by suckless, isn't it?

no, that's surf, which is webkitGTK and has JS I believe, but can't run in a framebuffer afaik. netsurf is a project that I think has ties to RISC-OS, but is fully cross-platform. Like I said it can run in framebuffer and has HTML and CSS, but no JS.

>>925403

IRC is probably the most insecure instant messaging protocol that I can imagine.

- no end2end encryption (technically you can use otr but who does that?)

- messages between servers may be transmitted without transport encryption

- time corelation attacks are trivial when only one user on a channel has tls disabled

Try xmpp+omemo like >>925453 recommends. Unfortunately there are few omemo implementations. Gajim is okay-ish and for mobile users conversations is nice. It's libre and user friendly.

>>925453

>>925462

What about Matrix/Riot?

>>925683

From their FAQ:

>How secure is this?

>Server-server traffic is mandatorily TLS from the outset. Server-client traffic mandates transport layer encryption other than for tinkering. Servers maintain a public/private key pair, and sign the integrity of all messages in the context of the historical conversation, preventing tampering. Server keys are distributed using a Perspectives-style system.

>End-to-end encryption is now available in the various Riot.im builds! This allows you to encrypt both 1:1 and group chats to protect user data stored on servers, using the Olm cryptographic ratchet implementation. Read more on the blog post that announced the feature!

>Privacy of metadata is not currently protected from server administrators - a malicious homeserver administrator can see who is talking to who and when, but not what is being said (once E2E encryption is enabled). See this presentation from Jardin Entropique for a more comprehensive discussion of privacy in Matrix.

So it's a part of the standard and is implemented in Riot.

>Why isn’t end-to-end encryption enabled by default?

>We are deliberately keeping E2E opt-in during the beta as there is a small risk of undecryptable messages, and we don’t want to lull folks into a false sense of security. As soon as we are out of beta, we will turn E2E on for any room with private history by default. Another consideration is to give other clients a chance to catch up with E2E support before it’s used by default.

so it'll be default/required soon, but not for now until they can make sure it's stable and most clients support it.

>>924487

>Do you know how literally everything you use every day works?

Yes.

>>925462

>Unfortunately there are few omemo implementations. Gajim is okay-ish and for mobile users conversations is nice

Just to throw a couple more into the mix, I've been satisfied with Pidgin+lurch on desktop and Zom on Android. Dunno if Zom is available for iShit, too.