4 ms·

Sorry for my English, I'll try to be clear... > Isn't Unix entirely about modularity? No, unix goal is to provide a minimal "platform" that third party softwa

by xte 8y ago

Sorry for my English, I'll try to be clear... > Isn't Unix entirely about modularity? No, unix goal is to provide a minimal "platform" that third party software may use as a "detached" base and interoperate via a simple, small and common IPC mechanism. Unix is essentially like a wagon to support any kind of boxes/pallets. LispM, Alto workstations, ITS, Emacs do the opposite: the OS must not be for them a platform with a very basic set of API/IPC any software can use but a sole, single, integrated environment in witch any software live inside like a complex machine. Unix was a success being simple because at that time using "unix-hater's OSes" was expensive, hard, to a point that you are totally tied to specific hw and you have to know many things to develop even a super-simple software. After however unix prove to be unable to evolve. Third party "giant frameworks" became a common thing, X with it libs etc is the most common example. Basic subset of functions and IPC can't compensate. We do not develop ANYTHING serious anymore after that, Plan9 was probably the last tentative but never get completed enough... I consider actual Emacs such as a small way to keep LispM alive, that suffer enormous limitation of not having hardware, bootloader a kernel to be a real OS however in today's tech status it offer the best way to operate on a desktop: everything is integrated through the most common things we know, text. It's status prove that idea is valid but so complex to accomplish completely that's practically failed. We simply can't sustain economically a LispMachine today. Hope to be more clear now...

benj111 8y ago
I think what you're saying is, is that modularity at the level of the library is what succeeded? Rather than at the process /syscall level, or in process level. To borrow your analogy. Pallet/shipping containers are modular(they won). Individual boxes and container ships, less so. I can get behind that. I'm not sure that's the absolute best way. Although as I write this, I'm reminded of the web browser I'm writing it in. Is it not more emacs than emacs?
- xte 8y ago
  Hum no, being "platform" for independent communicating software succeed at first (unix), after reach it's limit and it now appear clear that ancient idea pre/against unix of "fully integrated environment" in witch "programs" are only a module/code inside the "big" environment/framework succeed, unfortunately only partially because complexity it's too high to evolve it properly at "modern speed"... So we do not have now nothing that can really work at a scale only various horrid, hard to maintain and future-less hybrid solutions like Windows, GNU/Linux, AiX, HP_UX, True64, ... ... On today's web no it't certainly nothing like Emacs. In Emacs YOU have the full control of your environment, in modern web you only think to have a certain control but in the reality you are a powerless puppet of few giants companies... The sole similarity is the concept of hypertext itself that offer a kind of integration similar to Emacs one, but it's similar at a very superficial level because in Emacs it's integrated anything, not only the presentation level. In Emacs you can modify your software at runtime during normal use, not only link/integrate any text around your documents :-)

by xte 8y ago

benj111 8y ago

I think what you're saying is, is that modularity at the level of the library is what succeeded? Rather than at the process /syscall level, or in process level. To borrow your analogy. Pallet/shipping containers are modular(they won). Individual boxes and container ships, less so. I can get behind that. I'm not sure that's the absolute best way. Although as I write this, I'm reminded of the web browser I'm writing it in. Is it not more emacs than emacs?

xte 8y ago
Hum no, being "platform" for independent communicating software succeed at first (unix), after reach it's limit and it now appear clear that ancient idea pre/against unix of "fully integrated environment" in witch "programs" are only a module/code inside the "big" environment/framework succeed, unfortunately only partially because complexity it's too high to evolve it properly at "modern speed"... So we do not have now nothing that can really work at a scale only various horrid, hard to maintain and future-less hybrid solutions like Windows, GNU/Linux, AiX, HP_UX, True64, ... ... On today's web no it't certainly nothing like Emacs. In Emacs YOU have the full control of your environment, in modern web you only think to have a certain control but in the reality you are a powerless puppet of few giants companies... The sole similarity is the concept of hypertext itself that offer a kind of integration similar to Emacs one, but it's similar at a very superficial level because in Emacs it's integrated anything, not only the presentation level. In Emacs you can modify your software at runtime during normal use, not only link/integrate any text around your documents :-)