4 ms·

sort <infile | uniq | wc –l > outfile > [...] This construct uses a push down stack, so that the output of what is inside the angle-brackets is the input to so

sort <infile | uniq | wc –l > outfile > [...] This construct uses a push down stack, so that the output of what is inside the angle-brackets is the input to sort It doesn't really invalidate the argument, but unless I'm misunderstanding their statement, I think the author might have misparsed the above.

gonzus 5y ago
I am thankful to you for highlighting this part of the long paper. That completely wrong assertion (the input to sort is infile, nothing more, nothing less) casts the rest of the content in doubt (at least it does to me).
- GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
  Wait, you're saying that the author of several textbooks on OSs and author of MINIX is, somehow, not trustworthy due to one perhaps inaccurate interpretation? Harsh. ;-)
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Tanenbaum did not make the inaccurate interpretation of the: sort < infile | uniq | wc -l > outfile line. John Day, the author of the linked article, was the one who misunderstood it.
TFortunato 5y ago
FWIW, in Tanenbaum's original paper (which the author is reading), the correct meaning of the example is given quite plainly: "consider a simple UNIX pipeline: sort <infile | uniq | wc -l >outfile that sorts infile, an ASCII file with one word per line, strips out the duplicates, and prints the word count on outfile." So yes, it does seem the author did missed at least that part. Not sure about the rest of their arguments, but at this point, I'd say it's easy enough to find the original paper, which does seem quite readable. https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pdf https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pd...
jgrahamc 5y ago
Well, and Tanenbaum's original paper is very clear on what the statement does and how to interpret it: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pdf https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pd...
jacquesm 5y ago
That's a pretty basic misunderstanding and shows the author may not be qualified to even discuss this concept or, more charitably, that they are not from a UNIX background. I wonder if they would have read the same example without redirection of the output as a case of mismatched brackets ;)

gonzus 5y ago

I am thankful to you for highlighting this part of the long paper. That completely wrong assertion (the input to sort is infile, nothing more, nothing less) casts the rest of the content in doubt (at least it does to me).

GeorgeTirebiter 5y ago
Wait, you're saying that the author of several textbooks on OSs and author of MINIX is, somehow, not trustworthy due to one perhaps inaccurate interpretation? Harsh. ;-)
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Tanenbaum did not make the inaccurate interpretation of the: sort < infile | uniq | wc -l > outfile line. John Day, the author of the linked article, was the one who misunderstood it.

TFortunato 5y ago

FWIW, in Tanenbaum's original paper (which the author is reading), the correct meaning of the example is given quite plainly: "consider a simple UNIX pipeline: sort <infile | uniq | wc -l >outfile that sorts infile, an ASCII file with one word per line, strips out the duplicates, and prints the word count on outfile." So yes, it does seem the author did missed at least that part. Not sure about the rest of their arguments, but at this point, I'd say it's easy enough to find the original paper, which does seem quite readable. https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pdf https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pd...

jgrahamc 5y ago

Well, and Tanenbaum's original paper is very clear on what the statement does and how to interpret it: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pdf https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pd...

jacquesm 5y ago

That's a pretty basic misunderstanding and shows the author may not be qualified to even discuss this concept or, more charitably, that they are not from a UNIX background. I wonder if they would have read the same example without redirection of the output as a case of mismatched brackets ;)