> Also, claiming that unix is 30 years old doesn't say anything about
> weather it's the better solution. Windows is considerably
> younger. But I suspect it will be the "what not to do when you make
> an operating system" example for OS professors for many more years.
Well, let us examine the "30-year old" argument a little more
closely. What is "UNIX" anyways?
Is it the kernel? Clearly the modern kernels - Linux, Solaris,
etc... are not 30 years old. The code certainly is not, and neither
is the design. Most are fairly recent and incorporate modern advanced
operating system tricks and techniques. (where appropriate)
Ok, if it is not the kernel itself, then maybe it is the system
interface the kernel provides. This is fair to some degree. All UNIX
variants provide the same core POSIX system calls now, but POSIX is
barely touching 10 years old. It pulls a lot from the various UNIX
interfaces that came before it, taking the best (we hope :) and
settling on a standard. Furthermore, POSIX itself changes and evolves
with time bringing in new innovations. If settling on standard APIs
is bad, then I guess he should really be mad about all those old
standard protocols on that ancient technology called the internet.
Is the tools/apps? Well, we certainly cannot claim that most of the
normal UNIX applications are 30 years old. Some things certainly have
stuck around for a while: ls, rm, cp, etc... Is that a bad thing? I
would say no. You can use UNIX based machines never touching any of
the standard 30 year old command line tools.
But even if we do consider these old tools, I would suggest that
having them is VERY good and not having access to them on the
so-called modern OS he refers to is bad. These tools, IMHO, are the
core of the UNIX philosophy - do one thing and do it well. These are
our basic tools, just like hammers and saws and shovels. Just how
much better of a "grep" or "find" could we hope for if we abandoned
them and rewrote a whole new set of simple tools for our "modern" OS?
Would we be any better off? I think not.
So - what exactly is it about unix that is 30 years old and, more
importantly, what is bad about that? The fact is, over the years UNIX
has reinvented itself several times, replacing bad ideas with good
ones and good ones with better ideas. If any of those 30 year old
things poke through from time to time, I would suggest that it is
because nobody has yet come up with an alternative compelling enough
to cause a change. UNIX is not static. It changes to fit the users.
(unlike a certain modern commercial OS touted by accuser)
As an iside, I strongly recommend the book "The UNIX Philosophy"
to anyone who wants to understand what UNIX is, why it is like
that, and why that is a good thing. It is probably one of the best
UNIX books ever written - a must read.
___________________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] soli deo gloria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
