Why does pretty much nothing in Linux these days follow the Unix philosophy anymore?

Why does pretty much nothing in Linux these days follow the Unix philosophy anymore? Everything is a bloated mess that tries to do everything and does none of it well.

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    shwingi dingi shingi doo
    have a taste of my joker goo

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the better question is, why do people still care about muh unix philosopherino in 2024?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why do people care about good engineering practices in 2024?
      Good morning sir!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >unix
        >good engineering practices
        lol
        lmao
        https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Wasting millions/billion of dollars and man hours on israeli nepotism and memelangs is great engineering
          >A simple language that were anybody could implement an algorithm isn't
          Gas yourself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know what engineering is. Unix flies in the face of engineering. Unix is all about shitting out the laziest implementation possible. The philosophy of unix is to implement something that does 80% of the job 80% correctly, call the rest bloat, call the description of the implementation the design, and shit out a couple man pages.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LMAO
            lisp, apl and all these memelangs don't even believe in algorithms. It's just cowboy coding at it's worst.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            millions/billion of dollars and man hours on israeli nepotism and memelangs is great engineering
            That describes C and Unix.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie
            >Dennis Ritchie was born in Bronxville, New York. His father was Alistair E. Ritchie, a longtime Bell Labs scientist and co-author of The Design of Switching Circuits[4] on switching circuit theory.[5] As a child, Dennis moved with his family to Summit, New Jersey, where he graduated from Summit High School.[6] He graduated from Harvard University with degrees in physics and applied mathematics in 1963.[5]

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neither the inventor of c: dennis ritchie
            nor the inventor of b: ken thompson
            nor the inventor of bcpl: martin richards
            nor the inventor of unix: ken thompson
            Are israeli.
            So just normal nepotism. Except the difference is instead of shilling for your races meme lang he invented his own to solve a portability problem.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >jwz
          they're not even hiding it anymore

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The unix philosophy is a shit engineering practice.
        "One program that does one thing well" in practice means 10,000 programs shittily daily-chained together with way more overhead than necessary or perform a single cohesive task.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          For the user. Then an admin notices some users' script using lots of time and they simply ask one of the many programmers to write a program that does that one thing well. https://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't forget that each program is outputting a bucket of bytes.

          >correctness is bloat, handling edge cases is bloat, consistency is bloat
          Yes, because it's literally all your fantasies. There are an infinite amount of edge cases that you could bikeshed on. If we listened to you rm * .o wouldn't work, and we probably wouldn't have globbing, but some thing 1000x more complicated that is impossible to use.

          I'll give you a concrete example. People hate on gnu code for being not unixy, but it's handling important edge cases. Take for example readline. If you try to use linenoise instead of readline on linux, which is supposedly a minimal, unixy alternative, it chokes on unicode, where readline handles it gracefully. There are meaningful edge cases that well designed and engineered programs should handle, and this kind of thing gets analysis in real engineered products. If you took the unix attitude in writing aerospace or automotive software, you'd be out of a job very quickly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not an edgecase you massive fricktard that's literally just 1 program not supporting utf8, you can easily find forks of such a program with added utf8 support.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't forget that each program is outputting a bucket of bytes.

            [...]
            I'll give you a concrete example. People hate on gnu code for being not unixy, but it's handling important edge cases. Take for example readline. If you try to use linenoise instead of readline on linux, which is supposedly a minimal, unixy alternative, it chokes on unicode, where readline handles it gracefully. There are meaningful edge cases that well designed and engineered programs should handle, and this kind of thing gets analysis in real engineered products. If you took the unix attitude in writing aerospace or automotive software, you'd be out of a job very quickly.

            https://github.com/msteveb/linenoise

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You will never get through to them, zoomers don't and cannot understand the difference between features and edgecases. To them, all programs should read email (or embed discord)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            plan9 had utf8 support before gnu, and all other oses infact.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Poettering.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    GNU's Not Unix.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because.
    Same reason we don't make shops with rivets anymore https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Same reason we don't make shops with rivets anymore
      This would be a good comparison if we were all using plan 9 right now

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes yes we get it microsoft you're mad that a news article recently said you should give up on windows 11 blah blah
    cry more.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Everything is a bloated mess that tries to do everything and does none of it well.
    Name three. Without saying "systemd".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bash dbus systemd pulseaudio pipewire xdg sudo glibc gnu coreutils networkmanager wpasupplicant udev

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What the frick is your gripe with sudo?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn't know

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which is why I'm asking

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.google.com/search?q=sudo+cve

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's insecure and made by apple. What the frick mode do you want? Switch to doas.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pipewire is fricking goated though

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BSD doesn't have a Poetteringware problem.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because modern operating systems aren't designed. They congele out of new usecases and hardware. Look at a phone soc, it uses at least 4 different kernels and linux is sectioned off from every chip. Most security vulnerabilities come from giving linux access to the chips.

    People want their devices to do so much that there is simply no one design that exists to handle all of it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Most security vulnerabilities come from giving linux access to the chips.
      what is this fricking brain damage, most phone security issues are because of android and android is as un-linux as a linux based OS can possibly get

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nope. Those are just linux vulns, not phone vulns. As linux runs on practically none of a modern device.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Unpolished and messes up for many
    Ok understandable. Wasn't aware cause it worked so well for me with pipewirectl

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does pretty much nothing in Linux these days follow the Unix philosophy anymore? Everything is a bloated mess that tries to do everything and does none of it well.
    Because that's how Unix was. The "Unix philosophy" was made up for marketing. It never followed it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol what? The biggest program in unix was ed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That made sense when computers had 1 MB of ram, today we can afford to waste memory because we have so much available.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We really don't have that much memory, consider that main memory is a massive bottleneck and pretty much all real time programs need a cache. I would much rather have 10Mb that are 10000x faster than my 100GB. I can't even think of any program I use that needs more than 10Mb.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >more resources means more to waste
          Good morning sarr.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Because otherwise you turn into windows
    Ok, let's do it. A free and open source Windows is my dream OS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ReactOS

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One day.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The unix philosophy is dung and linux follows it perfectly. All you have to do is do the worst, laziest implementation, that's only partially correct. Correctness is bloat. Handling edge cases is bloat. Consistency is bloat.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >correctness is bloat, handling edge cases is bloat, consistency is bloat
      Yes, because it's literally all your fantasies. There are an infinite amount of edge cases that you could bikeshed on. If we listened to you rm * .o wouldn't work, and we probably wouldn't have globbing, but some thing 1000x more complicated that is impossible to use.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the unix philosophy of "each program should do one thing" maps onto how we think of functions today.
    this made sense when computing was mostly text manipulation and number crunching.
    The idea for unix back in the day was closer to what we think of an IDE.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your problem is that you think a computer shouldn't just be a really good ide. That it needs to also be a really good tv and playstation

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i didnt say any of that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the unix philosophy of "each program should do one thing" maps onto how we think of functions today.
      That's how programs actually work in Multics, Genera, and IBM mainframes. All program calls share the same process by default. Calling a program or command uses the same stack. Unix changed it by making one process = one program because the PDP-11 didn't have enough memory for all programs to share the same memory.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real reason c and unix are everywhere is that they are written in the only portable systems language. C. C was designed specifically to be portable from the get go. As for performance, bell labs discovered that the more work they did on the c compiler and runtimes the less their in house high level assembler language was needed.

    If you want a true c replacement you have to do an analysis of the most popular machines and find the intersection of their data types, and build the simplest language that gives you full control over those types, then create a genius compiler for it. And building an operating system that can, in a few months, be ported to every computer won't hurt.
    So yeah, just do that and you will have your next unix.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As with everything, a compromise is better than absolutism.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "OS research" died in the pre-unix days, now what gets used is just what's funded and what's convenient. You have tons of academics playing around with toy projects, but none of them ever get industry acceptance.
    The closest "research" projects that get out into the wild might be shit like Wayland, which is widely derided for being impractical, poorly thought out, and is actively suffering from grafts growing onto it to actually fulfil real-life usecases and remedy the flawed protocol.

    We will never, ever have a software ecosystem which is truly carefully thought-out and designed from the ground up to be elegant and fulfil some beautiful design philosophy. The modern computing stack is just too complex to develop something like that from scratch in a way that fulfils everyone's usecases, is not a regression in practice over existing solutions - and worst of all, it'd need enough benefits to also overcome inertia and actually push out existing systems somehow. That, or be backwards-compatible with them, which would make any "elegance" ten times harder to achieve.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      LLMs will do it in a few years, if they don't just multiplex all the hardware themselves.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol, no. The real question is "Is some programmer going to use an llm to write the perfect os" or "Are modern hardware vendors going to shit up their stack so much that not even a programmer using llm generated code could figure it out."

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read the following and try again:
    https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHA

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >unix is a bad operating system because I don't like the shell, even though unix is one of the few operating systems that let you use a different shell
        You can't fix stupid.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        unix is bad, because a shell exists and isn't the same as ever other shell, how dare ken thompson make c shell and then give it all these weird options.

        Read the following and try again:
        https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's hilarious that every "problem" they list is a nonproblem, and every "solution" they give would make day to day usage of the system 10x worse.
      And most of these "problems" are literally just "solutions" to other nonproblems that bsd added because they also didn't like (or understand) the workflow on unix systems.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get it. What is the point in fricking around with modern operating systems? It has literally never been cheaper and easier to make your own custom hardware.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *