Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.development.system > #686

Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/06/2014 04:15 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/05/14 09:46, crankypuss wrote:
>> On 05/05/2014 05:17 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 06/05/14 00:02, crankypuss wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2014 02:31 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>>> crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> <lots snipped>
>>>>
>>>>>> Some seem to disagree with that view, but then some people blindly
>>>>>> parse command output with sed and use that to drive system-critical
>>>>>> functionality; go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a lot of shell-programming when I was working on 'embeddded
>>>>> Linux
>>>>> project' some years ago because that was the most convenient
>>>>> programming
>>>>> language available to me in that environment (ARM9 machine language
>>>>> and C
>>>>> being the other options) and 'sed' was the most sophisticated
>>>>> text-processing tool available to me. What's wrong with using it?
>>>>
>>>> I know nothing about "ARM9 machine language" but if C was available,
>>>> yet
>>>> you used bash/sed, you must have been in one bigassed hurry or had some
>>>> extremely simple requirements.  I'm sure your performed your job as
>>>> expected and were rewarded accordingly.
>>>
>>> Someone who writes a C program when a simple bash/sed script could do
>>> the task, would be failing to do their job as expected.  One of the
>>> reasons Linux (and other *nix flavours) have multiple languages and
>>> tools is that different tools are better for different jobs, and that
>>> often it is the developer's time that is important rather than the
>>> systems run time.  A developer who thinks C is the answer to every
>>> question is like a carpenter armed only with a hammer.
>>>
>>> In the embedded Linux systems I have worked on, the final system used C,
>>> Python, Perl, C++, and bash.  I don't think sed was used, except as part
>>> of the makefiles.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, it is the developer's time that is important, because that is
>> what the employer has purchased.  Most employees are not very good at
>> building tools, and are as shortsighted as their employers.  Tools like
>> sed have been magically provided to them, nobody ever had reason to
>> write those because they were just magically there.  Far better to
>> simply use what has been provided, as expected, rather than building a
>> library of C subroutines that puts knocking out a small utility on the
>> same level of effort as debugging a bash/sed script where a single
>> misplaced character can cause unexpected errors that are difficult to
>> find.  Not that C syntax is much less finicky, but it at least provides
>> a few diagnostic clues regarding syntax errors.
>>
>> So, you mistake my words, I do not claim that C is the answer to every
>> problem, or even that there is no value in the bash/sed combination
>> (though I personally can't think of a situation where I'd use that
>> particular combination).  One uses the best tools at hand, and if one
>> finds that the best tools at hand are inadequate to the task, he obtains
>> a more appropriate tool, or if none are available, builds what is
>> needed.  I've used some gawdawful tools over the years, still use some
>> on a daily basis; some of them annoy me and they are on the to-do list.
>>
>> People are different, some are more compliant than others, some simply
>> grind through a task manually without even the use of something like
>> bash/sed.  Some use the tools at hand, others realize that their own
>> hands are their best tools.
>>
>> Since all programmers are equivalent economic units, they are easily
>> replaced if they fail to perform as expected: the hive mind has no love
>> for independent workers.
>
> I don't know what world you live in,

One where we both seem connected to a common network, at least.

> but it does not correspond to
> anything I have ever seen -

Please accept my sincere condolences.

> either in terms of how people work, how
> employees do their jobs, how employers view their customers or their
> staff, or how any non-commercial work is done.

Wow, that's quite a difference.  I've always felt that our family 
reunions (back when we had them) were a clear indication that somewhere 
in the past there must have been space aliens in the lineage, but never 
gave the theory much credence.

> I resent the implication
> that I am incompetent

If I wish to call you incompetent then I will simply do so without 
obfuscation, and most likely in an obscene manner; to the best of my 
recollection I have not done so, thus your resentment appears to have 
been self-generated.

> because I use appropriate tools for the job
> (ready-made if they exist - but making my own if I have to),

That seems to be "coming out of left field" since I advocate the use of 
the best tools available whether they are readymade or must be 
constructed from fresh-mined ore.  The fact that we seem to differ 
insofar as what we consider "acceptable" may be, is barely relevant.

> I resent
> the implication that my employer is incompetent

If your employer was able to get the job done without paying you to do 
it, you would not be employed; that is simple economics, no employer 
ever pays for something unnecessary and remains in business for long. 
Nor does any employer ever pay what the job is worth because if he did 
he would be losing money instead of making it; employee pay is *always* 
less than employee value.

> because he expects me to
> use appropriate tools for the job,

I hope this doesn't shock you, but your employer really doesn't care 
what tools you use to get the job done: your employer cares that the job 
*is* done, and those not terminally short-sighted also care that the 
result of your work will be maintainable by others in the future.  If 
you do something manually, use a "good" tool to do it, use a "bad" tool 
to do it, or build your own tool to do it, the employer has no reason to 
care, so long as the job is done and the result is "good".

> and I resent the implication that I
> am just a mindless drone at my job or that my employer treats me as such.

Some employers micro-manage and should be shaken from one's boots like 
the remains of a dog's bowel movements.  Others do not.  If one remains 
employed by a micro-manager he has reduced himself to the level of a 
mindless drone.  That is not a personal insult, it is a general truth.

> I don't know what you are doing posting in this newsgroup,

Presumably discussing the topics appropriate to this newsgroup.

> since you
> apparently have no concept of how development work is done (either
> commercial or open-source development),

Oh, my; that is quite an ambiguous statement.  It may very well be that 
I have no idea how some undefined group of others does development work, 
but I definitely know how I myself have done it, and how those few true 
developers I've worked with have done it.

> and you have nothing but
> contempt for Linux as an operating system,

I am somewhat abashed to need to remind you that linux is not an 
operating system, it is a kernel.  A kernel itself is not an operating 
system, it does not become an operating system until an intermediate 
layer exists to support applications.  In the case of most linux distros 
I have heard of, it is the core-commands that provide the interface 
level which qualifies a kernel as having become part of an operating 
system.  The collection of code that we generally consider "linux" 
seems, to me at least, decidedly bash-centric; that need not continue to 
be the case.

> the Linux environment,

I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase, "the Linux environment" but 
of course it is not Linux it is linux, and the kernel plus the 
associated higher-level code usually available is sufficiently 
tailorable that one can make it into what one prefers.

> and the Linux and open-source development ethos (which is /precisely/ to
> re-use existing tools when possible, making new ones when needed, and
> making those new tools available for others to use rather than making
> their own).

Wrong again, but at least you are consistently erroneous.

Back to comp.os.linux.development.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

shred or scrub "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-16 18:17 -0400
  Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-17 04:19 -0600
    Re: shred or scrub "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-18 22:30 -0400
      Re: shred or scrub Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-04-19 07:42 +0000
        Re: shred or scrub Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-04-19 10:04 +0100
      Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-19 02:15 -0600
      Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-19 23:05 +0100
        Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-20 02:47 -0600
          Re: shred or scrub John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-04-20 07:56 -0500
            Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-21 03:51 -0600
              Re: shred or scrub Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-04-21 11:50 +0000
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-21 06:14 -0600
            Re: shred or scrub "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 18:44 -0400
          Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-21 13:24 +0100
            Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-22 04:10 -0600
              Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-22 14:39 +0100
  Re: shred or scrub Kristof Provost <kristof@codepro.be> - 2014-04-17 13:15 +0000
    Re: shred or scrub John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-04-17 09:40 -0500
      Re: shred or scrub Kristof Provost <kristof@codepro.be> - 2014-04-18 14:40 +0000
    Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-18 02:12 -0600
      Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-18 11:49 +0200
        Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-18 09:59 -0600
          Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-21 16:14 +0200
            Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-22 04:22 -0600
              Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-23 00:06 +0200
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-23 05:50 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-24 22:46 +0200
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-25 03:57 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-25 19:14 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-26 04:02 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-27 21:26 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-28 03:27 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-28 12:17 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-28 13:01 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-29 02:50 -0600
                UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design (was: shred or scrub) Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-05 21:31 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-05 16:02 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-05-06 01:17 +0200
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-06 01:46 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-06 15:09 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-06 23:47 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-07 16:23 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-07 10:51 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-05-07 20:25 +0000
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-08 03:50 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-05-08 20:24 +0000
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-09 02:23 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-09 18:36 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-09 21:24 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-07 22:01 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-08 03:37 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-08 14:02 +0100
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-09 02:56 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-05-07 00:15 +0200
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-07 00:32 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-05-07 08:47 +0000
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-07 10:59 -0600
                Re: UNIX(*)/ Linux history & system design Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-05-06 14:35 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-26 16:30 +0200
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-27 05:59 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-27 20:15 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-28 03:29 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-28 12:06 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-27 21:41 +0200
                Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-28 04:03 -0600
                Re: shred or scrub Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-04-28 16:44 +0100
                Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-28 23:39 +0200
      Re: shred or scrub John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-04-18 07:37 -0500
        Re: shred or scrub crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-18 10:16 -0600
          Re: shred or scrub John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2014-04-18 12:01 -0500
      Re: shred or scrub Kristof Provost <kristof@codepro.be> - 2014-04-18 14:42 +0000
  Re: shred or scrub David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-17 16:41 +0200

csiph-web