6 ms·

Why would I care about "breaking the Unix way"?

by op00to 3y ago

PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
Because people who probably have never used Unix said it's superior.
Koshkin 3y ago
Right. Why would one care about principles.
- op00to 3y ago
  They’re not my principles, and I spent the first 15 years of my career administering real capital U UNIX systems.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Do you care about my principles too? Mine don't involve a Unix philosophy.
fsflover 3y ago
It's outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
- op00to 3y ago
  I don't care about a 50 year old technology philosophy. Times have changed. Cloud computing and the prevalence of highly distributed systems have completely changed how software is deployed, scaled, and managed. These environments often rely on complex orchestration which can stretch the boundaries of the UNIX philosophy towards systems that are more about interactions between distributed components than about simple, single-purpose tools.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 3y ago
    I don't see how it's relevant. An orchestration tool can also follow the Unix way by not implementing too much functionality and relying on the small tools for subtasks.
    - op00to 3y ago
      Why? For old time’s sake?
      - fsflover 3y ago
        See the Wiki link above.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685
    - okanat 3y ago
      And do you know what systemd is? A project that produces multiple orthogonal executables that share a syntax paradigm and communicate over standardized IPC mechanisms. I think the only valid-ish argument these Unix philosophy discussions boil down to "why didn't they use purely text based interfaces". Well because they are inefficent and hard to debug and reason with. Making things text only doesn't make them more understandable but they make sure the programs waste energy and development time in meaningless parsing code that is full of security issues.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        You have a point concerning the text files. (Although I would be really interested to see an example where efficiency of text files is insufficient on modern hardware.) However "multiple orthogonal multiple orthogonal executables" is just a strawman: their interfaces are unstable and non-straightforward, aand communicate over standardized IPC mechanismsnd one can't reliably replace one of them with an alternative. It's technically true but in practice not. This effectively makes it a huge, inflexible, not-easily-verifiable blob with wide permissions and, potentially, many bugs. > and communicate over standardized IPC mechanisms I've never seen that anyone could replace one systemd component with an alternative implementation. Did you?

Why would I care about "breaking the Unix way"?

by op00to 3y ago

Why would I care about "breaking the Unix way"?

PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago

Because people who probably have never used Unix said it's superior.

Koshkin 3y ago

Right. Why would one care about principles.

op00to 3y ago
They’re not my principles, and I spent the first 15 years of my career administering real capital U UNIX systems.
mardifoufs 3y ago
Do you care about my principles too? Mine don't involve a Unix philosophy.

fsflover 3y ago

It's outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

op00to 3y ago
I don't care about a 50 year old technology philosophy. Times have changed. Cloud computing and the prevalence of highly distributed systems have completely changed how software is deployed, scaled, and managed. These environments often rely on complex orchestration which can stretch the boundaries of the UNIX philosophy towards systems that are more about interactions between distributed components than about simple, single-purpose tools.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fsflover 3y ago
  I don't see how it's relevant. An orchestration tool can also follow the Unix way by not implementing too much functionality and relying on the small tools for subtasks.
  - op00to 3y ago
    Why? For old time’s sake?
    - fsflover 3y ago
      See the Wiki link above.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685
  - okanat 3y ago
    And do you know what systemd is? A project that produces multiple orthogonal executables that share a syntax paradigm and communicate over standardized IPC mechanisms. I think the only valid-ish argument these Unix philosophy discussions boil down to "why didn't they use purely text based interfaces". Well because they are inefficent and hard to debug and reason with. Making things text only doesn't make them more understandable but they make sure the programs waste energy and development time in meaningless parsing code that is full of security issues.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      You have a point concerning the text files. (Although I would be really interested to see an example where efficiency of text files is insufficient on modern hardware.) However "multiple orthogonal multiple orthogonal executables" is just a strawman: their interfaces are unstable and non-straightforward, aand communicate over standardized IPC mechanismsnd one can't reliably replace one of them with an alternative. It's technically true but in practice not. This effectively makes it a huge, inflexible, not-easily-verifiable blob with wide permissions and, potentially, many bugs. > and communicate over standardized IPC mechanisms I've never seen that anyone could replace one systemd component with an alternative implementation. Did you?