> That covers pretty much all of unix. I think Unix critics completely miss the point. Contrary to your claim, Unix's basic architecture principles were proven

> That covers pretty much all of unix. I think Unix critics completely miss the point. Contrary to your claim, Unix's basic architecture principles were proven to be key to it's success. Contrary to your claim, this does not mean each tool and interface defines the gold standard for operating systems. Since then we have half a century of advances in ergonomics, developer experience, and software engineering, which Unix developers didn't had back then. More importantly, what you are missing is the myriad of alternatives to Unix that were developed since Unix was specified in POSIX, and how each and every single one of them is an utter and complete failure in representing a better alternative to Unix. A lot of them claim to do things in a better way, but in practice none of them ever delivered anything remotely capable. Unix is the poster child of "x is the worst, except for every single other alternative".