7 ms·

Right. I have a simple rule: don’t use a GNU/Linux system that uses systemd. It doesn’t respect the Unix philosophy. It’s trying to turn it into Windows. I’m w

Right. I have a simple rule: don’t use a GNU/Linux system that uses systemd. It doesn’t respect the Unix philosophy. It’s trying to turn it into Windows. I’m waiting for Microsoft to buy Red Hat. Failing that, IBM.

gtirloni 5y ago
Uh? https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-la...
cfors 5y ago
IBM already purchased red hat for $34b 3 years ago, so no need to wait any longer :)
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  I think he means that MS would buy IBM and RedHat with it. I doubt they will though. Like others have said MS buying Canonical would make a lot more sense. And there have already been a lot of overtures.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    What I meant is that MS could buy Red Hat from. IBM. Failing that, buy IBM.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zkldi 5y ago
I mean, emacs doesn't respect the UNIX philosophy either, but that's one of the most praised pieces of software to come out of the UNIX space. The UNIX philosophy isn't meant to be taken as gospel - hell, it's very hard to define what "doing one thing" even means.
- elcritch 5y ago
  Didn’t emacs get developed on ITS or Multics? Seems Unix just imported it, but your point still holds.
  - lizknope 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#History Yes. Emacs development began during the 1970s at the MIT AI Lab, whose PDP-6 and PDP-10 computers used the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) operating system that featured a default line editor known as Tape Editor and Corrector (TECO)
  - Breazy 5y ago
    Early versions of Emacs didn't have lisp extension languages, which is kind of strange to think about considering the role elisp plays in GNU Emacs as we know it today. GNU Emacs with elisp is something that developed in the context of the MIT lisp machine scene. Sure it runs and was developed on unix-like operating systems, but lisp extensible emacs were never really some sort of embodiment of the 'unix principles'.
    - lispm 5y ago
      The first four Emacs editors, which had something like an extension language: Emacs (1976), EINE (1977), SINE and Multics Emacs (1978). EINE and Multics Emacs were written & extended in Lisp. SINE was using a 'lisp-like' language. A bunch of further Emacs-like editors appeared then. GNU Emacs later (1984) was based on Gosling Emacs (1981), which was written in C and extended with Mocklisp. Mocklisp was a rather uncomplete Lisp, which was replaced with Emacs Lisp by Richard Stallman.
jcelerier 5y ago
that's great because the unix philosophy is pretty much a PITA as soon as you get out of grep | cut | tail | tee. I definitely don't want "unix philosophy" for operating system management, that is the wrong tool for the job.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Then you should not use UNIX then. There is another mainstream OS besides UNIX. Some people like to be able to know what their system does and like to use tools on which they can rely on even when things go wrong.
  - awrmc 5y ago
    I think it's fair to say that Linux isn't Unix and goes well beyond the design constraints of Unix that were imposed when it was originally started in 1969. That's the era you stick to when you insist on only doing things the Unix way, but there are a lot of other ways to know what your system does and have reliable tools. In current times the most common usage of Linux is Android, which is ostensibly not Unix-like at all regarding its userspace. If you're talking about GNU, that quite literally means "GNU is not Unix".
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    yes, I don't use UNIX, I use ArchLinux which is a much better operating system for my computer needs. The "proper" UNIX I've used (macOS) really sucked in comparison.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      I've used Arch, it's really excellent. But, not now that it's systemd. I use Devuan for my servers, and Alpine for my desktop. I use MacOS and iOS for internet viewing and A/V. I have no interest in how they are implemented - superficial observation indicates they are a mess. I do ssh into my servers from MacOS - it's comfortable with my laptop actually in my lap.
rnd0 5y ago
I hate the feature and mission creep of systemd and try to use other unixes where I am able; but what you wrote is downright insane. There were several init replacements in the mainstream before systemd. OSX and Solaris both had their own, and they were as UNIX (officially certified) as you can get. Also, as long as we're doing non-sequitors; Microsoft is more likely to buy Canonical than they are to buy RedHat or IBM.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Lennart Poettering, the fellow who is turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows, works for Red Hat.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows The piece of software systemd is most like is launchctl, which doesn't come from Windows. On the other hand, the biggest "Windows-ism" to reach Linux lately is io_uring. But it's both too technical and too useful to have some populist uprising against it.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      systemd user sessions, socket activation, sysusers, dynamic users, systemd-homed, temporary directory setup, transient units, anything talking to the slice or control group APIs, containerization, firstboot, systemd’s whole “preset” system-wide configuration and policy mechanism for admins to say “what services do I want launched when installed and what services do I want to leave stopped until I configure them”, “stateless system” capabilities, and I’m probably forgetting another dozen. I don't care about the init system - I reboot a Linux system once in a blue moon, for kernel updates. It's the rest of the complication and changes to a system that I had already made the effort to master. I understand that the New Linux is better for Enterprise, so that's what is going to happen. That doesn't mean I have to like Poettering gradually re-writing the entire base of userland. I just want to run simple servers, not a major enterprise.
bigbillheck 5y ago
I've been using various unices for thirty years this year. I have no respect for the 'unix philosophy'.
- hulitu 5y ago
  I am married since 30 years. I have no respect for my wife /s
int_19h 5y ago
If you want the Unix philosophy, why not use an actual Unix? The BSDs not only all have traditional init systems, but are also more in line with how old-school Unix worked in general (e.g. base system segregation).
- wrycoder 5y ago
  I have. OpenBSD is great! The biggest problem I had was that it was difficult to keep upgraded. In those days, it was basically a re-install every six months, plus a merge of any local changes. I understand things are much better now, and I may give it another try.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    FreeBSD is generally more straightforward for desktop use, IMO.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      I like OpenBSD - it's so clean. I use i3 and don't care about audio/video, so my needs are minimal. I use MacOS/iOS to view the internet, but not for development.
kaba0 5y ago
Linux the kernel doesn’t respect the Unix philosophy either by a huge margin. Also, Unix philosophy is not even the Saint script — it can be good for some problems but terrible for others. In certain cases a distributed between 34 small programs is just a worse approach that will be bug prone and hard to test.

gtirloni 5y ago

Uh? https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-la...

cfors 5y ago

IBM already purchased red hat for $34b 3 years ago, so no need to wait any longer :)

GekkePrutser 5y ago
I think he means that MS would buy IBM and RedHat with it. I doubt they will though. Like others have said MS buying Canonical would make a lot more sense. And there have already been a lot of overtures.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  What I meant is that MS could buy Red Hat from. IBM. Failing that, buy IBM.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zkldi 5y ago

I mean, emacs doesn't respect the UNIX philosophy either, but that's one of the most praised pieces of software to come out of the UNIX space. The UNIX philosophy isn't meant to be taken as gospel - hell, it's very hard to define what "doing one thing" even means.

elcritch 5y ago
Didn’t emacs get developed on ITS or Multics? Seems Unix just imported it, but your point still holds.
- lizknope 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#History Yes. Emacs development began during the 1970s at the MIT AI Lab, whose PDP-6 and PDP-10 computers used the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) operating system that featured a default line editor known as Tape Editor and Corrector (TECO)
- Breazy 5y ago
  Early versions of Emacs didn't have lisp extension languages, which is kind of strange to think about considering the role elisp plays in GNU Emacs as we know it today. GNU Emacs with elisp is something that developed in the context of the MIT lisp machine scene. Sure it runs and was developed on unix-like operating systems, but lisp extensible emacs were never really some sort of embodiment of the 'unix principles'.
  - lispm 5y ago
    The first four Emacs editors, which had something like an extension language: Emacs (1976), EINE (1977), SINE and Multics Emacs (1978). EINE and Multics Emacs were written & extended in Lisp. SINE was using a 'lisp-like' language. A bunch of further Emacs-like editors appeared then. GNU Emacs later (1984) was based on Gosling Emacs (1981), which was written in C and extended with Mocklisp. Mocklisp was a rather uncomplete Lisp, which was replaced with Emacs Lisp by Richard Stallman.

jcelerier 5y ago

that's great because the unix philosophy is pretty much a PITA as soon as you get out of grep | cut | tail | tee. I definitely don't want "unix philosophy" for operating system management, that is the wrong tool for the job.

hulitu 5y ago
Then you should not use UNIX then. There is another mainstream OS besides UNIX. Some people like to be able to know what their system does and like to use tools on which they can rely on even when things go wrong.
- awrmc 5y ago
  I think it's fair to say that Linux isn't Unix and goes well beyond the design constraints of Unix that were imposed when it was originally started in 1969. That's the era you stick to when you insist on only doing things the Unix way, but there are a lot of other ways to know what your system does and have reliable tools. In current times the most common usage of Linux is Android, which is ostensibly not Unix-like at all regarding its userspace. If you're talking about GNU, that quite literally means "GNU is not Unix".
- jcelerier 5y ago
  yes, I don't use UNIX, I use ArchLinux which is a much better operating system for my computer needs. The "proper" UNIX I've used (macOS) really sucked in comparison.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    I've used Arch, it's really excellent. But, not now that it's systemd. I use Devuan for my servers, and Alpine for my desktop. I use MacOS and iOS for internet viewing and A/V. I have no interest in how they are implemented - superficial observation indicates they are a mess. I do ssh into my servers from MacOS - it's comfortable with my laptop actually in my lap.

rnd0 5y ago

I hate the feature and mission creep of systemd and try to use other unixes where I am able; but what you wrote is downright insane. There were several init replacements in the mainstream before systemd. OSX and Solaris both had their own, and they were as UNIX (officially certified) as you can get. Also, as long as we're doing non-sequitors; Microsoft is more likely to buy Canonical than they are to buy RedHat or IBM.

wrycoder 5y ago
Lennart Poettering, the fellow who is turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows, works for Red Hat.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows The piece of software systemd is most like is launchctl, which doesn't come from Windows. On the other hand, the biggest "Windows-ism" to reach Linux lately is io_uring. But it's both too technical and too useful to have some populist uprising against it.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    systemd user sessions, socket activation, sysusers, dynamic users, systemd-homed, temporary directory setup, transient units, anything talking to the slice or control group APIs, containerization, firstboot, systemd’s whole “preset” system-wide configuration and policy mechanism for admins to say “what services do I want launched when installed and what services do I want to leave stopped until I configure them”, “stateless system” capabilities, and I’m probably forgetting another dozen. I don't care about the init system - I reboot a Linux system once in a blue moon, for kernel updates. It's the rest of the complication and changes to a system that I had already made the effort to master. I understand that the New Linux is better for Enterprise, so that's what is going to happen. That doesn't mean I have to like Poettering gradually re-writing the entire base of userland. I just want to run simple servers, not a major enterprise.

bigbillheck 5y ago

I've been using various unices for thirty years this year. I have no respect for the 'unix philosophy'.

hulitu 5y ago
I am married since 30 years. I have no respect for my wife /s

int_19h 5y ago

If you want the Unix philosophy, why not use an actual Unix? The BSDs not only all have traditional init systems, but are also more in line with how old-school Unix worked in general (e.g. base system segregation).

wrycoder 5y ago
I have. OpenBSD is great! The biggest problem I had was that it was difficult to keep upgraded. In those days, it was basically a re-install every six months, plus a merge of any local changes. I understand things are much better now, and I may give it another try.
- int_19h 5y ago
  FreeBSD is generally more straightforward for desktop use, IMO.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    I like OpenBSD - it's so clean. I use i3 and don't care about audio/video, so my needs are minimal. I use MacOS/iOS to view the internet, but not for development.

kaba0 5y ago

Linux the kernel doesn’t respect the Unix philosophy either by a huge margin. Also, Unix philosophy is not even the Saint script — it can be good for some problems but terrible for others. In certain cases a distributed between 34 small programs is just a worse approach that will be bug prone and hard to test.