2 ms·

> When Apple implemented app bundles, they never updated dyld's search paths to be aware of the app bundle directory structure, meaning you have to manually pat

> When Apple implemented app bundles, they never updated dyld's search paths to be aware of the app bundle directory structure, meaning you have to manually patch your rpaths. Typically things like this have binary compatibility reasons. (It wouldn't be because they forgot, actually I happen to know the same person has worked on dyld since the 90s.) > but it's one of many very sloppy things I noticed coming from a strong Unix background to Mac Funny thing to complain about. Sloppiness /is/ Unix design, that's intentional. It's called "worse is better". On the other hand, nobody uses Plan9 because it's too well-designed to actually work.

nxobject 3y ago
Oh wow, employed since NeXT? (There needs to be an "Apple/NeXT long-hauler oral history" or something. Chris Espinosa, hired 1976, is still around...)
- mattl 3y ago
  Avie Tevanian and Jon Rubenstein both have oral histories on the Computer History Museum website/YouTube.
johnnyjeans 3y ago
> Sloppiness /is/ Unix design, that's intentional. It's called "worse is better". That's missing the point. It's about simplicity through well designed abstraction. Unix was a runaway game engine that became Bell Lab's standard for talking to computers because it was vastly simpler than the poorly engineered MULTICS and friends. That's why it won. > On the other hand, nobody uses Plan9 I use Plan 9 every day. I'm replying to you from inside abaco. I run a tablet with it, have a whole network of machines (most of them virtual). I'm in the middle of a project to create a light fixture I can talk to in 9p. It's not the first DIY IoT thing I've made to control over a Plan 9 terminal. My grid also runs my email, my file servers, an LLM chatbot (though this is actually served from a Linux machine via Inferno tsk tsk.) The only reason I use anything else is due to my job requiring me to ship a product in C++ and OpenGL. For something that doesn't "actually work", I find that it actually works excellently.
- worewood 3y ago
  Hyperbole; "nobody" means an insignificant amount of people.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Go programmers use something Plan9-y, but I don't think much of Go's design either; it's a combination of Unix's underdesign with Plan9's inflexible and idiosyncratic taste.

nxobject 3y ago

Oh wow, employed since NeXT? (There needs to be an "Apple/NeXT long-hauler oral history" or something. Chris Espinosa, hired 1976, is still around...)

mattl 3y ago
Avie Tevanian and Jon Rubenstein both have oral histories on the Computer History Museum website/YouTube.

johnnyjeans 3y ago

> Sloppiness /is/ Unix design, that's intentional. It's called "worse is better". That's missing the point. It's about simplicity through well designed abstraction. Unix was a runaway game engine that became Bell Lab's standard for talking to computers because it was vastly simpler than the poorly engineered MULTICS and friends. That's why it won. > On the other hand, nobody uses Plan9 I use Plan 9 every day. I'm replying to you from inside abaco. I run a tablet with it, have a whole network of machines (most of them virtual). I'm in the middle of a project to create a light fixture I can talk to in 9p. It's not the first DIY IoT thing I've made to control over a Plan 9 terminal. My grid also runs my email, my file servers, an LLM chatbot (though this is actually served from a Linux machine via Inferno tsk tsk.) The only reason I use anything else is due to my job requiring me to ship a product in C++ and OpenGL. For something that doesn't "actually work", I find that it actually works excellently.

worewood 3y ago
Hyperbole; "nobody" means an insignificant amount of people.
- astrange 3y ago
  Go programmers use something Plan9-y, but I don't think much of Go's design either; it's a combination of Unix's underdesign with Plan9's inflexible and idiosyncratic taste.