7 ms·

I think mindset plays a role as well. Back in the day, there was a restraint on adding features, at least when they would make the logic more complicated for on

I think mindset plays a role as well. Back in the day, there was a restraint on adding features, at least when they would make the logic more complicated for only a tiny or imagined benefit. Part of that was memory/storage limitations. But I think the pursuit of an abstract idea of elegance was equally important. After all, these systems were primarily written for other computer people. This idea is completely gone from the world of software engineering. Systems become overloaded with the implementation of every crappy idea under the sun -- if a PM in a fever dream can think of it, and an overworked dev can hack it together, it goes in.

the_gipsy 3y ago
Not in open source. Projects with the attitude of allowing any feature that some rando comes up with die quickly when the manpower to keep it up simply isn't there. The projects with maintainers that gatekeep are the ones that survive, and they survive for a long time.
anewhnaccount2 3y ago
In the case of Unix, it was deliberately a KISS/stripped down successor to Multics. The simplicity was originally intended for faster development and running on minicomputers rather than mainframes. In the end the simplicity also meant hackability and portability which is probably why it was successful and has had so much staying power.
pjc50 3y ago
Features are, like it or no, where the value is.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  Especially the features we don't consider. Try replacing your "ls" command with the one found in the original Unix, sure it's 90% smaller, or more, but I guarantee that it doesn't do colors.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Is that an example of the 80/20 rule... with some creativity? 80% of code being for the 80% of the functionality that aren't strictly necessary ;).
    - adwn 3y ago
      "Strictly necessary" is too strict a criterion. For me, ls without colors to distinguish between files and directories sucks ass, as would an ls which doesn't sort by name (also not "strictly necessary").
  - benj111 3y ago
    Ls -l tells you whether it's a directory. (-l flag available in the first edition) If you want colours you can pipe it through a sed script. If you want to sort it in some way you could pipe it to sort or something. No system is ever going to do everything everyone wants. The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want.
    - hardware2win 3y ago
      It reminds me of that dropbox rsync meme...
    - mrweasel 3y ago
      > The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want. And yet here we are, with ls having builtin support for color, sorting and more.
      - b112 3y ago
        Yes, very annoying.
      - fao_ 3y ago
        The reasons for GNU bloat are well documented, but instead you are arguing over uhh... colour? ls outputting colour or not? Isn't that the very definition of bikeshedding?
- drpixie 3y ago
  You sure about that. I was reading only yesterday (can't find the link - sorry) about how little each extra feature is used - that the vast majority of value & use is in the core. I see the other way around. Additional features are people's special cases and hobby-horses, and unlikely to be used by other people. BUT each new feature/interface/etc adds the potential for (and really of) more bugs. Perhaps it should be "features are where the security holes are"? :)
adwn 3y ago
> This idea is completely gone from the world of software engineering. Systems become overloaded with the implementation of every crappy idea under the sun -- if a PM in a fever dream can think of it, and an overworked dev can hack it together, it goes in. That's a very developer-centric point of view. Elegance and simplicity are great, but if a program is missing crucial features, it becomes less useful or even useless for users. Like it or not, but the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of its users, not that of its developers.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > if a program is missing crucial features A PM's fever dream is almost never a crucial feature. The PM may think it is, may say it is... but it's not. I agree that software should be written for the benefit of users. But too much of software becomes baroque ornamentation that fills in check boxes on feature lists but is of little actual usefulness.
- fao_ 3y ago
  > the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of its users, not that of its developers. No, the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of the company that's selling it. There's a very, very clear difference there. A lot of this business rests on advertising to people to convince them that the product is good, rather than actually creating a good product. Have you actually worked a regular job and spoken to people who use software? The large majority of software have bugs that make the program unfit for purpose. The more widely used it is, the more of a monopoly the company producing the software has on the market, and in turn the more likely the product is to be a hot piece of shit.

the_gipsy 3y ago

Not in open source. Projects with the attitude of allowing any feature that some rando comes up with die quickly when the manpower to keep it up simply isn't there. The projects with maintainers that gatekeep are the ones that survive, and they survive for a long time.

anewhnaccount2 3y ago

In the case of Unix, it was deliberately a KISS/stripped down successor to Multics. The simplicity was originally intended for faster development and running on minicomputers rather than mainframes. In the end the simplicity also meant hackability and portability which is probably why it was successful and has had so much staying power.

pjc50 3y ago

Features are, like it or no, where the value is.

mrweasel 3y ago
Especially the features we don't consider. Try replacing your "ls" command with the one found in the original Unix, sure it's 90% smaller, or more, but I guarantee that it doesn't do colors.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Is that an example of the 80/20 rule... with some creativity? 80% of code being for the 80% of the functionality that aren't strictly necessary ;).
  - adwn 3y ago
    "Strictly necessary" is too strict a criterion. For me, ls without colors to distinguish between files and directories sucks ass, as would an ls which doesn't sort by name (also not "strictly necessary").
- benj111 3y ago
  Ls -l tells you whether it's a directory. (-l flag available in the first edition) If you want colours you can pipe it through a sed script. If you want to sort it in some way you could pipe it to sort or something. No system is ever going to do everything everyone wants. The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want.
  - hardware2win 3y ago
    It reminds me of that dropbox rsync meme...
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    > The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want. And yet here we are, with ls having builtin support for color, sorting and more.
    - b112 3y ago
      Yes, very annoying.
    - fao_ 3y ago
      The reasons for GNU bloat are well documented, but instead you are arguing over uhh... colour? ls outputting colour or not? Isn't that the very definition of bikeshedding?
drpixie 3y ago
You sure about that. I was reading only yesterday (can't find the link - sorry) about how little each extra feature is used - that the vast majority of value & use is in the core. I see the other way around. Additional features are people's special cases and hobby-horses, and unlikely to be used by other people. BUT each new feature/interface/etc adds the potential for (and really of) more bugs. Perhaps it should be "features are where the security holes are"? :)

adwn 3y ago

> This idea is completely gone from the world of software engineering. Systems become overloaded with the implementation of every crappy idea under the sun -- if a PM in a fever dream can think of it, and an overworked dev can hack it together, it goes in. That's a very developer-centric point of view. Elegance and simplicity are great, but if a program is missing crucial features, it becomes less useful or even useless for users. Like it or not, but the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of its users, not that of its developers.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> if a program is missing crucial features A PM's fever dream is almost never a crucial feature. The PM may think it is, may say it is... but it's not. I agree that software should be written for the benefit of users. But too much of software becomes baroque ornamentation that fills in check boxes on feature lists but is of little actual usefulness.
fao_ 3y ago
> the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of its users, not that of its developers. No, the vast majority of software is written for the benefit of the company that's selling it. There's a very, very clear difference there. A lot of this business rests on advertising to people to convince them that the product is good, rather than actually creating a good product. Have you actually worked a regular job and spoken to people who use software? The large majority of software have bugs that make the program unfit for purpose. The more widely used it is, the more of a monopoly the company producing the software has on the market, and in turn the more likely the product is to be a hot piece of shit.