Comment by fsflover
1 day ago
You are so vague in your attack on Unix approach that it's borderline trolling. What are your problems with it? Modularity and minimalism have been working perfectly and that systemd does not follow them is a bad thing.
1 day ago
You are so vague in your attack on Unix approach that it's borderline trolling. What are your problems with it? Modularity and minimalism have been working perfectly and that systemd does not follow them is a bad thing.
There is a book on that, gets posted every now and then on HN.
In case you never read it, https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf
Hardly the piece of OS beauty that gets praised about FOSS circles.
I love that book but isn’t it nearly 30 years old?
And yet many of the pain points are still kind of relevant, go figure.
I'm not talking about the OS though but about the approach.
Goes to both, otherwise UNIX authors would not have tried to improve their creations, working on successors to both UNIX and C.
But that book is a waste. It is just MIT dunning-krugerites who were salty that LISP machines never took off. When it comes to real life, the bell labs approach won, and for several good reasons. Not "worse is better" (another dunning-krugerite cope), but "less is more."
Turns out free beer is great, even when it is warm.
2 replies →
But your comment is a waste. It is just HN dunning-krugerites who were salty that the UNIX way never took off. When it comes to real life, the Poettering approach won, and for several good reasons.
2 replies →