Wouldn't at least gcc be from the MIT culture given its originator was from the mit ai lab? Where's readline and info from originally? Not to mention emacs.
Where did the --option syntax originate? Maybe they wanted to say /option but that's not possible under Unix. Wouldn't the -o vs --very-long-option-name count as a MH vs. MIT artifact? These are real questions. I would like to know. > oh ya. i think the gnu culture was seperate from the start. > i started out by necessity. they needed to get their software > to run on all kinds of unix varients, which were highly incompatable. > and for a while it was pretty good stuff. > > (for example, the infamus mt xinu tools were suffering from bit > rot when gnu tools started to become usable. for example, > xinu grep had a really short line limit. gnu grep didn't (thanks mike.) > the xinu shell was the original bourne shell, and would exit if you > hit ^C at the wrong time and had signal-related memory > issues because of its infamous memory management.) > > however gnu has devolved. they seem to value compiling on anything, > and efficiency, but they don't seem to value simplicity. gcc is a good > example of how getting as far out-of-balance as gnu seems to be > can undermine one's primary goals. > > - erik > > On Fri Mar 17 05:35:36 CST 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > i think that open source code has a very different outlook >> > on the world than plan 9. it's very hard (and frustrating) to >> > deal with the culture clash when porting. >> >> That brings to mind something that I've been thinking about for a >> couple of years. In watching the stuff in Linux and poking around the >> simulators and old code, I can see at least three different cultures. >> Murry Hill (Bell Labs), 545 Technology Sq (MIT), and Berkeley. These >> cultures have belief systems that are mutually exclusive. And there >> must be subcultures as well. The socket interface, for example, is >> really MIT culture thru BBN to BSD. >> >> Anyone else see this? More cultures? >> >>
