Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
Hello! On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:40:12AM -0200, Gustavo Rios wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=424451seqNum=1 I don't agree with most things, but a few comments: One-Way System Calls. There are solutions for that that work quite well. Witness systrace, for example. Or Arla. Or the way kernel messages get logged to files. The critique on C is quite on point in my eyes. How many stack or heap overflows we wouldn't incur if we used something having decent string support and bounds checking, be it at compile-time or at run-time? However, having C as the main low level system language is okay for me, i.e. having the kernel and the basic userland libraries, startup, etc. done in C just works fine. However for more high-level application code I'd prefer working in a higher level language, binding needed functionality in from C/C++ using the foreign function interface of the higher level language. Alas, I'm forced to do most of my paid work in C++ - but then, for me, C++ is mostly an improvement over C already, and the integration of C code proper is easy, of course. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On 07/11/2005, at 1:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everything is a stream of bytes. Reminds me of that saying which goes something like... How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. Microsoft tries to put the whole elephant in its mouth all at once, then dies choking on it. Then the elephant it blamed. Shane J Pearson
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
At first I thought perhaps my sarcasm detector (now _there's_ a real useful invention!) was broken, but apparently this guy is serious. To put a new twist on the old aphorism: Those who do not understand the UNIX Hater's Handbook are doomed to reinvent it poorly. (Or maybe plagiarize it poorly, I can't tell.) If you haven't read it, it's worth taking a look at. Very much tongue-in-cheek, of course, and due to its age, not entirely correct now (being written prior to the rise of Linux and *BSD). If nothing else, read dmr's anti-foreword and the appendix where Thompson, Kernhigan, and Ritchie admit UNIX and C were April Fool's pranks. Nick's taking himself seriously bit and subsequent deconstruction reminded me of this publication (I mean this as a compliment, really!). I still keep the KR C book on my shelf (long live 1TBS!). It's the 2nd ed. though... being young enough to learn C as ANSI C, I find the earlier style of code positively icky, and I think the ansify commits in the CVS logs agree with me. :-) Speaking of going off-topic... -Andrew
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 06:22:29AM -0600, Andrew Daugherity wrote: At first I thought perhaps my sarcasm detector (now _there's_ a real useful invention!) was broken, but apparently this guy is serious. I'm seriously falling into this troll trap.. oh well. It's an interesting article but in the end it doesn't really say anything and leaves the reader with nothing. If this guy was serious he'd proactively provide an alternative to UNIX. But he doesn't. He just cries about how much UNIX sucks for his purposes. He mentions QNX and how nice that is, but he fails to mention that QNX isn't Open Source and that you gotta buy it. And you probably don't get the source with it either. I for one think the Unix-like Operating System of my choice outweighs any nitpicks of this crank. -peter
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
Nick Holland wrote The whole C doesn't do strings has always been complete Bull Sh*t in my mind. C does strings like the processor underneath does -- it doesn't make complex operations involving moving thousands of bytes look simple. While I do use Perl for some apps, the stuff it lets you get away with in one line creeps me out horribly...knowing C and a few (ancient) assembly languages, I know what is going on under the covers, but I have sympathy for the new programmer (or very experienced programmer who lacks certain bits of experience) who writes a ten line program and wonders why it takes twenty minutes to run... I also think C is a great language. I also think it does strings well, you just need to be a little creative about it. A pointer here and a data structure there will go along way. If someone can't make C do strings I think they need to reevaluate there creativity. You have to play a game here or there but once you do it and figure it out - its done forever. Anthony
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
I always thought that the number one reason Unix sucked as lack of support for Mind-Reading Markup Language so I don't have to use any input device anymore. I guess I was wrong.
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:40:12AM -0200, Gustavo Rios wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=424451seqNum=1 Looks like a rehash of http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/unix-haters.html with its Anti-Foreward by Dennis Ritchie. Whether you think it is humurous or not is of course up to you. I thought it was funny when I read it '94. Ken
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 00:40:12 -0200, Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=424451seqNum=1 I didn't even bother loading the page... if it's sarcasm, should be funny, but if it's not funny, the guy is probably serious. If you want a critical look at UNIX, with comparisons, google up a copy of the UNIX Haters Handbook, It's good reading even if you are a devout weenix uni. JCR
RE: Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:40:12AM -0200, Gustavo Rios wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=4244 51seqNum=1 Looks like a rehash of http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/unix-haters.h tml with its Anti-Foreward by Dennis Ritchie. Whether you think it is humurous or not is of course up to you. I thought it was funny when I read it '94. Ken Looks like a good book. Thanks. from the Preface Deficient by Design Being small and simple is more important than being complete and correct You only have to solve 90% of the problem. Everything is a stream of bytes. Despite a plethora of fine books on the subject, Unix security remains an elusive goal at best. There is an obvious implication for Windows security. These attitudes are no longer appropriate for an operating system that hosts complex and important applications The gripes may be legitimate, but really, are we any closer to finishing that last 10% than we were 40 years ago? Before there even were such things as operating systems and editors and such. Probably the real reason to hate Unix is that it has outlived its betters, and will most likely continue to do so. Somehow the assumption that you have 100% (when only 90% is attainable) seems to be eventually fatal.
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 00:40:12 -0200 Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=424451seqNum=1 Just another troll for 10+ pages of adverts. No original insight there - just a rehashing old arguments made by people who either don't understand Unix or have an axe to grind. Don't bother giving the publication the benefit of the page impressions. -d
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
On 06/11/2005, at 3:32 PM, Damien Miller wrote: Don't bother giving the publication the benefit of the page impressions. If anyone still wants to read it, but wish to avoid the adverts, this is the printer friendly version: http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=424451
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
http://www.informit.com/authors/bio.asp? a=79c6e6ec-5bc6-49a8-8d5d-0fccd04b1a7b He's a CS major working on a PhD in autonomic computing and co- authored a Red Hat Linux book. Of course he's bitter and hasn't got the full picture. ;-) His complaints are either edge cases, or simply wrong. Ignore him. As someone else in the peanut gallery stated earlier: His first class honors degree and two pounds will get him a pint at the local pub. -- Bryan Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bda.mirrorshades.net Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk.
Re: OT: 10 things i hate most on unix
Gustavo Rios wrote: Hey folks, sorry, but i found this on the web. May someone tell if it is serious, i myself could not believe it. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=424451seqNum=1 The author is taking themselves seriously. I don't recommend you make the same mistake. 1) Everything Is a File (Unless It Isn't) yeah, so? The better solution would be to make somethings a file and somethings not? Hows' that different? Or maybe the Plan 9 option which is supposedly super-consistent, but lacking applications and usage in real life. 2) Everything Is Text I've worked on systems where some files are fixed records, others are binary, some are text...thank you, I like the Unix approach. 3) No Introspection Har. MacOS as an example of what he wants? Gee, isn't Apple DROPPING that feature on OSX? While it is great if you happen to be interested in only talking to other Macs, it's a major irritant if you can't get the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD to agree with you on how its done, and that WILL NOT happen. 4) X11: Almost a GUI a very weak, but almost valid point here. I first saw this comment about X almost 20 years ago. X11 is kinda clunky in some regards, but not so clunky that people have decided as a group on a good alternative. Propose an alternative, port it to a lot of platforms, port a lot of software to it, and then we will talk. Until then, enjoy X. 5) Standard Input, Standard Output Without an alternative stated, this is complete bull. Don't like STDIO? Don't use it. Isn't appropriate for your app? Don't use it. Sheesh. 6) Synchronous System Calls *yawn* Hm. If QNX is so much more efficient, why is Unix used on most supercomputers now? Obviously, the issue isn't big enough to cause people to jump favorite OSs. 7) One-Way System Calls Yes, this is clearly why there are so few applications written in Unix. *snicker* 8) C: Cross-Platform PDP Assembler ok, this argument kills all credibility for the whiner..er..author in my eyes. C became the language of choice for because it WORKS and works well for its intended purpose. It was developed by people who used it for their own use. It was chosen by others because it worked for them. Yes, it was developed IN a Huge Company, but it was not pushed by them. Contrast that to a popular language right now which is being crammed down the corporate world's throat. I really suspect that ten years after Sun Microsystems vanishes or quits pushing Java, Java will vanish like scores of other proprietary languages, and C will still be actively used. ok, I may be a bit biased here. I love C. I fell in love with it almost from the first article I read about it (Byte Magazine, early 1980s), and loved it when I first started programming in it (Software Toolworks C on CP/M-80, later BDS C, also on CP/M-80. BDS C could produce hello world in a COMPLETELY self-contained 2k binary). The White Book was the ultimate programming language definition guide -- very complete, and very readable, and very slim. You could feel the bits and bytes flowing by in your programs. Everything was an integer -- pointers were integers, strings were integers, and even floating point was just a bunch of bytes(=integers) you handled carefully. Yeah, obviously, it had some serious problems -- the portable assembly language idea just doesn't work out for anything other than the most basic of programs, so layers of abstraction were added in ANSI C. The whole C doesn't do strings has always been complete Bull Sh*t in my mind. C does strings like the processor underneath does -- it doesn't make complex operations involving moving thousands of bytes look simple. While I do use Perl for some apps, the stuff it lets you get away with in one line creeps me out horribly...knowing C and a few (ancient) assembly languages, I know what is going on under the covers, but I have sympathy for the new programmer (or very experienced programmer who lacks certain bits of experience) who writes a ten line program and wonders why it takes twenty minutes to run... C isn't the ultimate language for all activities, but it is darned good, it has been chosen through natural selection, not marketing money and buzzword compliance. Sure, I'd love to see a better language, but I haven't seen it yet, and I have seen LOTS of replacements for C that clearly will never take over. Funny, many of the alternative languages to C are written in..C. And, they are available and were originally developed on Unix. I'll admit, my love of C kinda faded when it went from being a PDP assembler to a completely portable, abstract, high-level language that ANSI C is now. Yeah, yeah, I know, all kinds of advantages to portable code. But no ANSI C compiler does a hello world in a 2k stand-alone binary...and you can't feel the bytes in your fingers anymore (and if you do, you are writing non-portable code, which is bad. See why I stay out of src/ ? :). Some clues to what the alternative
