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

Groups > comp.misc > #13239 > unrolled thread

the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-03-02 16:26 -0500
    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-03 00:09 +0200
      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-03-03 00:04 +0000
        Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-03 00:25 +0000
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-03 11:02 +0000
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-03 11:05 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-03 11:06 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2017-03-03 15:40 +0200
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-03 23:01 +0100
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-03 22:13 +0000
        Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-03 14:07 +0200
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-03 12:12 +0000
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-03-03 08:47 -0500
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-03 16:37 +0200
    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2017-03-03 02:37 +0000
    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-03 11:01 +0000
    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-03 12:12 +0000
      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-03 13:51 +0000
        Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-03-03 14:19 +0000
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2017-03-03 12:59 -0500
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-03 18:14 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-03-03 16:06 -0400
      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-03-03 16:02 +0000
        Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2017-03-04 15:44 +0200
    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Caecilius <nospam@spamless.invalid> - 2017-03-03 18:29 +0000
      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-03 22:16 +0000
        Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-04 07:35 +0000
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-04 10:19 +0100
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-04 11:16 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-04 12:47 +0100
                Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-04 12:35 +0000
          Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-04 09:42 +0000
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-04 11:20 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-04 12:48 +0100
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-04 12:34 +0000
                Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-04 15:39 +0000
                  Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2017-03-18 13:06 +0000
                    Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2017-03-19 18:56 -0400
                      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-20 00:35 +0000
                      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2017-03-20 05:47 +0000
                      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2017-03-20 06:06 +0000
                      Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-21 19:01 +0100
            Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-04 12:41 +0100
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2017-03-04 12:58 +0100
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2017-03-04 12:34 +0000
              Re: the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-04 15:43 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#13239 — the Unix philosophy and a collection of hacks

https://kukuruku.co/post/the-collapse-of-the-unix-philosophy/

James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
you’ll like his blog too.

So, I do not want to say that UNIX – is a bad system. I’m just drawing
your attention to the fact that it has tons of drawbacks, just like
other systems do. I also do not cancel the “UNIX philosophy”, just
trying to say that it’s not an absolute. My post is mostly referred to
UNIX and GNU/Linux fans. The provocative tone has been used just to
attract your attention.

-- 
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13240

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
> you’ll like his blog too.

Clickbait?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13241

On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
>> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
>> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
>> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
>> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
>> you’ll like his blog too.
>
> Clickbait?
>
>
> Marko

I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the article
itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they weren't
intended to be.

I'm always reminded of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where all
Brian's followers are holding up sticks from which a sandal is dangling, the
now orthodox way of representing the man who lost his sandal as he fled from
them ...

The /bin vs. /usr/bin and /opt thing was interesting.  So was the one about
make and its tab format.  Didn't know the history behind either of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13242

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
>>> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
>>> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
>>> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
>>> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>
>> Clickbait?
>>
>>
>> Marko
> 
> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
> weren't intended to be.

Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The writer 
seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not seem to be 
aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.

(incidentally, the UHH is worth a read; I learned some useful stuff from 
it. Available free, online, now)


-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13245

On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
>>>> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
>>>> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
>>>> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
>>>> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
>>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>>
>>> Clickbait?
>>>
>>>
>>> Marko
>> 
>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
>> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
>> weren't intended to be.
>
> Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The writer 
> seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not seem to be 
> aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.
>
> (incidentally, the UHH is worth a read; 

Really? I thought it sucked syphilitic donkey dick.

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 62nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13246

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:02:17 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get
>>>>> across is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better
>>>>> alternatives and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in
>>>>> thinking”. The Source. Read this article and the one he refers to:
>>>>> «Free Your Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you
>>>>> like my article,
>>>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>>>
>>>> Clickbait?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marko
>>> 
>>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
>>> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
>>> weren't intended to be.
>>
>> Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The
>> writer seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not
>> seem to be aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.
>>
>> (incidentally, the UHH is worth a read;
> 
> Really? I thought it sucked syphilitic donkey dick.

It was worth a read because it actually taught me how to do some things 
I'd previously had trouble with. In between the whinges.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13247

On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:02:17 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>>>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>>>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get
>>>>>> across is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>>>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better
>>>>>> alternatives and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in
>>>>>> thinking”. The Source. Read this article and the one he refers to:
>>>>>> «Free Your Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you
>>>>>> like my article,
>>>>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clickbait?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marko
>>>> 
>>>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
>>>> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
>>>> weren't intended to be.
>>>
>>> Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The
>>> writer seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not
>>> seem to be aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.
>>>
>>> (incidentally, the UHH is worth a read;
>> 
>> Really? I thought it sucked syphilitic donkey dick.
>
> It was worth a read because it actually taught me how to do some things 
> I'd previously had trouble with. In between the whinges.

I couldn't get past the whinging.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 62nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13251

Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:

> It was worth a read because it actually taught me how to do some things 
> I'd previously had trouble with. In between the whinges.

Such as?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13263

On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:
>>
>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
>> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
>> weren't intended to be.
>
> Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The writer 
> seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not seem to be 
> aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.
>
> (incidentally, the UHH is worth a read; I learned some useful stuff from 
> it.)

Seconded.  I read the UHH[1] when I first started using Unix.  My first
read of it gave me a good chuckle, the second read through taught me quite
a bit of how and why things had ended up as they did.

> Available free, online, now.

<http://web.mit.edu/%7Esimsong/www/ugh.pdf>

-- 
A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems into
I/O-bound problems.                                 ---Ken Batcher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13264

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 23:01:31 +0100, Paul Sture wrote:

> On 2017-03-03, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:04:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory, but I liked the
>>> article itself: history of things that became "the way" even if they
>>> weren't intended to be.
>>
>> Some of it seems to be lifted from the UNIX-Haters's Handbook. The
>> writer seems to be very well informed about some things, yes does not
>> seem to be aware that MS-DOS came a *lot* later than UNIX.
>>
>> (incidentally, the UHH is worth a read; I learned some useful stuff
>> from it.)
> 
> Seconded.  I read the UHH[1] when I first started using Unix.  My first
> read of it gave me a good chuckle, the second read through taught me
> quite a bit of how and why things had ended up as they did.
> 
>> Available free, online, now.
> 
> <http://web.mit.edu/%7Esimsong/www/ugh.pdf>

Thanks. Couldn't find the official link, although I host it on my UNIX 
history page.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13248

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:

> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
>>> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
>>> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
>>> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
>>> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>
>> Clickbait?
>
> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory,

I was referring to your intro, which contained no information but tried
to sucker me into clicking the link.

Well, it failed.

> The /bin vs. /usr/bin and /opt thing was interesting. So was the one
> about make and its tab format. Didn't know the history behind either
> of them.

Still clickbaiting.

Usenet postings should contain the subject matter in the posting itself
with links only as references or further reading. You shouldn't have to
click a link to participate in a Usenet discussion.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13250

On 2017-03-03, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>
>> On 2017-03-02, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:
>>>> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
>>>> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
>>>> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
>>>> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
>>>> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
>>>> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
>>>> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
>>>> you’ll like his blog too.
>>>
>>> Clickbait?
>>
>> I thought the guy's title was a bit inflammatory,
>
> I was referring to your intro, which contained no information but tried
> to sucker me into clicking the link.
>
> Well, it failed.
>
>> The /bin vs. /usr/bin and /opt thing was interesting. So was the one
>> about make and its tab format. Didn't know the history behind either
>> of them.
>
> Still clickbaiting.
>
> Usenet postings should contain the subject matter in the posting itself
> with links only as references or further reading. You shouldn't have to
> click a link to participate in a Usenet discussion.

Sigh. Who put you in charge?


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 62nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13252

Marko Rauhamaa<marko@pacujo.net> wrote: .
> Still clickbaiting.
> Usenet postings should contain the subject matter in the posting itself
> with links only as references or further reading. You shouldn't have to
> click a link to participate in a Usenet discussion.
> Marko

Just fill out the form below and my people will get back to you with your refund.


http://www.pophangover.com/4641/the-official-internet-butthurt-complaint-form/
-- 
Usenet Reader for Android
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13256

"RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com>:

> Marko Rauhamaa<marko@pacujo.net> wrote: .
>> Still clickbaiting. Usenet postings should contain the subject matter
>> in the posting itself with links only as references or further
>> reading. You shouldn't have to click a link to participate in a
>> Usenet discussion. Marko
>
> Just fill out the form below and my people will get back to you with
> your refund.

At least you have that.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13243

On 2017-03-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
> the eighties), ...

As an aside, I guess 'veteran' in this context is a matter of point of
view. I've been programming at least that long but would not describe
myself or similar-aged colleagues that way. My father-in-law, on the
other hand, cut his programming teeth on an IBM 650 magnetic drum system
in the 1950s. I consider him to be a veteran programmer.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13244

On 2017-03-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> https://kukuruku.co/post/the-collapse-of-the-unix-philosophy/
>
> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
> you’ll like his blog too.
>
> So, I do not want to say that UNIX – is a bad system. I’m just drawing
> your attention to the fact that it has tons of drawbacks, just like
> other systems do. I also do not cancel the “UNIX philosophy”, just
> trying to say that it’s not an absolute. My post is mostly referred to
> UNIX and GNU/Linux fans. The provocative tone has been used just to
> attract your attention.

And yet Unix "won". Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 62nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13249

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> https://kukuruku.co/post/the-collapse-of-the-unix-philosophy/
>
> James Hague, a veteran of programming (has been in programming since
> the eighties), writes the following: “What I was trying to get across
> is that if you romanticize Unix, if you view it as a thing of
> perfection, then you lose your ability to imagine better alternatives
> and become blind to potentially dramatic shifts in thinking”. The
> Source. Read this article and the one he refers to: «Free Your
> Technical Aesthetic from the 1970s». Actually, if you like my article,
> you’ll like his blog too.
>
> So, I do not want to say that UNIX – is a bad system. I’m just drawing
> your attention to the fact that it has tons of drawbacks, just like
> other systems do. I also do not cancel the “UNIX philosophy”, just
> trying to say that it’s not an absolute. My post is mostly referred to
> UNIX and GNU/Linux fans. The provocative tone has been used just to
> attract your attention.

* Conflating filesystem synchronization operations with how
  configuration data is stored is a bit of a stretch; at best it moves
  the question around a bit.

* There doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgement that there are advantages
  to the “lots of text files in /etc” strategy - the ability to diff
  configurations, for instance. But it’s true that adopting a consistent
  syntax would be an improvement.

* At any rate, options for storing usernames and passwords moved on from
  flat files in Unix rather a long time ago.

* The SA_RESTART/EINTR thing is, again, just a matter of moving a
  problem around between different layers. In this case the initial
  decision to solve it in one layer rather than another may have been a
  pragmatic one, but as it turns out it also has some practical
  advantages: sometimes you _want_ your long-running operation to
  terminate when a signal arrives.

* It’s still faster to type ‘cp’ than ‘copy’ in 2017. The overall cost
  of both may be smaller, at least if you’re not operating over a slow
  network link, but the basic observation remains as true as it was in
  the 1970s.

* printf() is not about optimization of either CPU time or memory; it is
  there to make life easier for the programmer.

* Author apparently does not understand what zombie processes are and
  why they exist.

* Yes, C is a disaster by any reasonable modern standard. Picking
  pathological examples, or merely ones that are too difficult for the
  author, doesn’t shed any light on the issue though.

* AFAIK NTFS solves the filename encoding problem by declaring one
  encoding to be right. Unix has pretty much done the same by now,
  settling on UTF-8. 

* Yes, the shell’s quoting rules are a disaster. But...

* The ‘find’ example is wrong. I expect they didn’t test it.

* The longer ‘find’ example deliberately and admittedly avoids using the
  tools designed to solve the problem at hand. Not exactly an honest
  argument.

* Yes, the byte order nonsense in struct sockaddr_in is stupid.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13253

On 03/03/2017 12:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> * It’s still faster to type ‘cp’ than ‘copy’ in 2017.

I find it easier to type proper English words than acronyms or 
abbreviations, up to a certain length anyway.

And using 'cp' isn't any faster for me as I invariably keep typing 
'copy' then have to do it again but with 'cp'!

>   The overall cost
>   of both may be smaller, at least if you’re not operating over a slow
>   network link, but the basic observation remains as true as it was in
>   the 1970s.

I don't think so. You now have longer filenames and paths (plus all the 
other crap that can appear in a shell command line). Whether the command 
has 2 or 4 characters is less significant.

> * Yes, C is a disaster by any reasonable modern standard.

Or a not so modern one.

-- 
bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13255

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 03/03/2017 12:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> * It’s still faster to type ‘cp’ than ‘copy’ in 2017.
>
> I find it easier to type proper English words than acronyms or
> abbreviations, up to a certain length anyway.
>
> And using 'cp' isn't any faster for me as I invariably keep typing
> 'copy' then have to do it again but with 'cp'!

Sounds like you’d benefit from an alias.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13258

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 03/03/2017 12:12, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> * It’s still faster to type ‘cp’ than ‘copy’ in 2017.
>>
>> I find it easier to type proper English words than acronyms or
>> abbreviations, up to a certain length anyway.
>>
>> And using 'cp' isn't any faster for me as I invariably keep typing
>> 'copy' then have to do it again but with 'cp'!
>
> Sounds like you’d benefit from an alias.
>
But that seems to happen a lot.  People make judgement, or "adapt" to 
Unix, but never do it fully.  So they are always fighting it, rather than 
adapting.

I suppose it may be that I never really used MSDOS, but I've never in my 
life typed "copy" instead of "cp".

But every so often, in the Linux newsgroups, someone posts about how they 
run as root for some reason, and they want to know how to fix something so 
they can run it as root.  SOme specific programs don't want to be run as 
root.  So instead of accepting that running as root isn't a good thing, 
they want to start adjusting everything to fit their own world view.

Since they are swimming against the current, they might be better off with 
a different operating system, rather than cursing Linux, or just start 
swimming with the current.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web