4 ms·

Plan 9 does so very much right. On Linux, namespaces are a mess of complexity which waited for Docker to make them usable; on Plan 9, a container runtime is ba

Plan 9 does so very much right. On Linux, namespaces are a mess of complexity which waited for Docker to make them usable; on Plan 9, a container runtime is basically a shell script. I suspect that Plan 9 would be a more stable underlying OS for many places where Linux is used today, to include Android. I don’t know if it would be as efficient, but I really do question how much more important efficiency is than simplicity and correctness.

josephg 3y ago
Linux is “correct” enough. It generally does what it says on the tin. The sad truth is that users don’t care how simple software is to write. They do care about performance and battery life on their devices. The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. Every time - so long as any unnecessary complexity is hidden from users. Simplicity buys you velocity, and velocity matters. But that’s a secondary effect.
- exe34 3y ago
  > The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. No it doesn't. Developers and their employers choose slow and complex that saves them time in development, and customers choose things that exist over things that don't. They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex.
  - josephg 3y ago
    Do you care how simple Google search is, internally, for Google? No. All that matters is it has a good UI, and it returns good search results. > They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex. I also choose IntelliJ over Vim.
    - exe34 3y ago
      As long as I don't have to buy a new computer every year to run the latest Google, I don't care. If my browser or other essential application keeps growing in ram requirements without ground breaking improvements, I grumble. > I also choose IntelliJ over Vim. Now do the same with your tram or parking ticket app.
      - josephg 3y ago
        Ah! But ram is a performance requirement, not a simplicity thing. Simple software can often be extremely inefficient with how it uses ram - and complex software can be complex because it makes good use of the underlying hardware. I 100% want lean, fast software. But software being lean and fast is often at odds with it being simple. As an example, I’ve written a very complex realtime collaborative text editing library in rust that’s about 3000 loc. I’ve also ported the algorithm to JavaScript in about 500 lines. The JavaScript version is simpler by any metric - and it uses about 10x the ram and runs 100x slower than the optimised rust code. My point is the rust code is better. It sounds like you may agree - at least in part.
ilaksh 3y ago
The sad thing is that with humans momentum matters more than anything, especially logic. We are stuck with assumptions and structures from decades ago, due to the inability of most people to adapt and judge things on their merit. They subconsciously make decisions based on surface level indicators like popularity. This is one reason that I feel that within a century or two, human-like beings will not be in control of this planet. Intelligent life will continue to evolve.
- exe34 3y ago
  > surface level indicators like popularity Popularity is a great heuristic for the individual - it means you'll find more examples, more tutorials, more help, more support, and others will beta test it before you get bitten. As a society, it's a prisoner's dilemma that we all keep defecting.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    It is not the prisoner's dilemma. There is no third party punnishment involved. More like "paradox of voting"?
    - exe34 3y ago
      Tragedy of the commons if you want to be pedantic, but ultimately nature is a harsh judge. Everybody loses in the end. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8125#:~:text=A%20Rigorous%20Proof%20of%20the,the%20common%20good%20is%20small https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8125#:~:text=A%20Rigoro.... ("Tragedy of the Commons is always a prisoner’s dilemma")
      - rightbyte 3y ago
        Ye sure. Maybe I could argue "nature is the third party punnisher" is a bit too reductionist, but I get your point.
crabbone 3y ago
Unix' popularity wasn't due to its engineering qualities, rather due to the niche it occupied in the larger ecosystem. Trying to make a slightly better Unix, but not replacing the older one in its niche wouldn't succeed. It would've been a typical "solution looking for a problem". There are plenty of places where Linux isn't the best solution (in engineering terms), nor is anything from the Unix extended family. But there's plenty of meta-engineering factors that make it "work".
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Also being freely available with source tapes helped quite a lot. UNIX would have been hardly as successful if AT&T had been allowed to sell it from the early days.

josephg 3y ago

Linux is “correct” enough. It generally does what it says on the tin. The sad truth is that users don’t care how simple software is to write. They do care about performance and battery life on their devices. The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. Every time - so long as any unnecessary complexity is hidden from users. Simplicity buys you velocity, and velocity matters. But that’s a secondary effect.

exe34 3y ago
> The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. No it doesn't. Developers and their employers choose slow and complex that saves them time in development, and customers choose things that exist over things that don't. They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex.
- josephg 3y ago
  Do you care how simple Google search is, internally, for Google? No. All that matters is it has a good UI, and it returns good search results. > They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex. I also choose IntelliJ over Vim.
  - exe34 3y ago
    As long as I don't have to buy a new computer every year to run the latest Google, I don't care. If my browser or other essential application keeps growing in ram requirements without ground breaking improvements, I grumble. > I also choose IntelliJ over Vim. Now do the same with your tram or parking ticket app.
    - josephg 3y ago
      Ah! But ram is a performance requirement, not a simplicity thing. Simple software can often be extremely inefficient with how it uses ram - and complex software can be complex because it makes good use of the underlying hardware. I 100% want lean, fast software. But software being lean and fast is often at odds with it being simple. As an example, I’ve written a very complex realtime collaborative text editing library in rust that’s about 3000 loc. I’ve also ported the algorithm to JavaScript in about 500 lines. The JavaScript version is simpler by any metric - and it uses about 10x the ram and runs 100x slower than the optimised rust code. My point is the rust code is better. It sounds like you may agree - at least in part.

ilaksh 3y ago

The sad thing is that with humans momentum matters more than anything, especially logic. We are stuck with assumptions and structures from decades ago, due to the inability of most people to adapt and judge things on their merit. They subconsciously make decisions based on surface level indicators like popularity. This is one reason that I feel that within a century or two, human-like beings will not be in control of this planet. Intelligent life will continue to evolve.

exe34 3y ago
> surface level indicators like popularity Popularity is a great heuristic for the individual - it means you'll find more examples, more tutorials, more help, more support, and others will beta test it before you get bitten. As a society, it's a prisoner's dilemma that we all keep defecting.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  It is not the prisoner's dilemma. There is no third party punnishment involved. More like "paradox of voting"?
  - exe34 3y ago
    Tragedy of the commons if you want to be pedantic, but ultimately nature is a harsh judge. Everybody loses in the end. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8125#:~:text=A%20Rigorous%20Proof%20of%20the,the%20common%20good%20is%20small https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8125#:~:text=A%20Rigoro.... ("Tragedy of the Commons is always a prisoner’s dilemma")
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      Ye sure. Maybe I could argue "nature is the third party punnisher" is a bit too reductionist, but I get your point.

crabbone 3y ago

Unix' popularity wasn't due to its engineering qualities, rather due to the niche it occupied in the larger ecosystem. Trying to make a slightly better Unix, but not replacing the older one in its niche wouldn't succeed. It would've been a typical "solution looking for a problem". There are plenty of places where Linux isn't the best solution (in engineering terms), nor is anything from the Unix extended family. But there's plenty of meta-engineering factors that make it "work".

pjmlp 3y ago
Also being freely available with source tapes helped quite a lot. UNIX would have been hardly as successful if AT&T had been allowed to sell it from the early days.