4 ms·

Linux is obsolete. The main thing it has going for it is that it isn't actively hostile to it's users like the alternatives. It's also somewhat hackable and ope

by AyyEye 2y ago

Linux is obsolete. The main thing it has going for it is that it isn't actively hostile to it's users like the alternatives. It's also somewhat hackable and open, for those technically enough inclined. Also unlike it's alternatives it's (slowly but surely) on a positive trajectory... And that's not something anyone says about Windows or Mac. > How I hated UNIX back in the seventies - that devilish accumulator of data trash, obscurer of function, enemy of the user! If anyone had told me back then that getting back to embarrassingly primitive UNIX would be the great hope and investment obsession of the year 2000, merely because it's name was changed to LINUX and its source code was opened up again, I never would have had the stomach or the heart to continue in computer science. > Why can’t anyone younger dump our old ideas for something original? I long to be shocked and made obsolete by new generations of digital culture, but instead I am being tortured by repetition and boredom. For example: the pinnacle of achievement of the open software movement has been the creation of Linux, a derivative of UNIX, an old operating system from the 1970s. It’s still strange that generations of young, energetic, idealistic people would perceive such intense value in creating them. Let’s suppose that back in the 1980s I had said, “In a quarter century, when the digital revolution has made great progress and computer chips are millions of times faster than they are now, humanity will finally win the prize of being able to write a new version of UNIX!” It would have sounded utterly pathetic. - Jaron Lanier

tcoff91 2y ago
Just goes to show that network effects beat superior technology every time.
chris_wot 2y ago
I can’t see a single thing in that quote that explains why they didn’t like Unix. I’m sure there are good reasons, but the entire quote is an argument from emotion.
- AyyEye 2y ago
  Because it wasnt about "why they don't like unix" and it's not an argument against unix. The first is an aside about the failure of computer science in general, in a manifesto against AI types and cybernetic totalism [1] and the second is from "you are not a gadget". Why unix is bad isn't really the point of either when viewed in context. The second quote also has bits about wikipedia that I edited out for length. Where are our lisp machines? Our plan9? Our microkernels? The first (mainstream) half-interesting OS we've seen in decades is NixOS and that's still got linux under the hood as a compromise [2]. At least this space is lively right now, and maybe something like nix will let us use some of the good software on whatever interesting project comes next. [1] https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-one-half-a-manifesto https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-one-half-a-ma... [2] linux under NixOS isn't actually a hard requirement. There's no reason a brand new kernel can't be used. There are currently a few small projects that use rust-based non unix microkernels and other interesting experiments.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    I’ve gone and read the piece you’ve referenced and I can’t locate the second quote. However, I still cannot see any real technical argument about why he believes Linux is trash. The first quote is a diatribe about how, despite Moore’s Law, software seems to get slower. Nowhere does he give specific examples of how this is a Linux’s issue. Firstly, he isn’t terribly precise what he means by “Linux”. His example is an indexing process that apparently takes all night. There is no mention about why it is that Linux itself is the cause. The OS and even distribution does t seem to be the issue, but the way he is indexing. I cannot find anywhere in his rather long-winded essay about why he concretely thinks UNIX (and by extension, Linux) is the cause of his woes. If this is the best argument to say that technology is not where he wants it to be, then I’m unimpressed.

by AyyEye 2y ago

tcoff91 2y ago

Just goes to show that network effects beat superior technology every time.

chris_wot 2y ago

I can’t see a single thing in that quote that explains why they didn’t like Unix. I’m sure there are good reasons, but the entire quote is an argument from emotion.

AyyEye 2y ago
Because it wasnt about "why they don't like unix" and it's not an argument against unix. The first is an aside about the failure of computer science in general, in a manifesto against AI types and cybernetic totalism [1] and the second is from "you are not a gadget". Why unix is bad isn't really the point of either when viewed in context. The second quote also has bits about wikipedia that I edited out for length. Where are our lisp machines? Our plan9? Our microkernels? The first (mainstream) half-interesting OS we've seen in decades is NixOS and that's still got linux under the hood as a compromise [2]. At least this space is lively right now, and maybe something like nix will let us use some of the good software on whatever interesting project comes next. [1] https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-one-half-a-manifesto https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-one-half-a-ma... [2] linux under NixOS isn't actually a hard requirement. There's no reason a brand new kernel can't be used. There are currently a few small projects that use rust-based non unix microkernels and other interesting experiments.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  I’ve gone and read the piece you’ve referenced and I can’t locate the second quote. However, I still cannot see any real technical argument about why he believes Linux is trash. The first quote is a diatribe about how, despite Moore’s Law, software seems to get slower. Nowhere does he give specific examples of how this is a Linux’s issue. Firstly, he isn’t terribly precise what he means by “Linux”. His example is an indexing process that apparently takes all night. There is no mention about why it is that Linux itself is the cause. The OS and even distribution does t seem to be the issue, but the way he is indexing. I cannot find anywhere in his rather long-winded essay about why he concretely thinks UNIX (and by extension, Linux) is the cause of his woes. If this is the best argument to say that technology is not where he wants it to be, then I’m unimpressed.