| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
roki942
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 285
Location: Seattle
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
From this commit log:
"systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world.
Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | Stumbled accross this. |
gwr ... that was already posted earlier in this thread (p.29).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | Stumbled accross this. |
gwr ... that was already posted earlier in this thread (p.29).
best ... khay |
I have no idea how I missed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1845
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: |
From this commit log:
"systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world.
Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them." |
Haha...talk about a classic example of "tell us what you really think"  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | From this commit log:
"systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world.
Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them." |
| tld wrote: | | Haha...talk about a classic example of "tell us what you really think" :D. |
LMAO.
Although, I did find the busybox syslogd code quite interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3522
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The busybox thing made Slashdot, too. http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/11/01/0051216/busybox-deletes-systemd-support
Looking at the comments, there seem to be more on the con side for systemd. However it also looks like the higher-moderated comments are on the pro side for systemd. But then again, it's Slashdot, and commenters there seem to think that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by money-grubbing scientists, and I presume they also think that the selfless fossil-fuel industry is there to protect us. (Rather harsh and unfair, I know. But systemd arguments tend to make one feel harsh.)
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6065
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
phoronix is running it as well... the general posters there are very pro-systemd (the hoster ... indifferent, probably doesn't want to burn his advertising by becoming personally affiliated with one side or another..)
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3522
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | the general posters there are very pro-systemd |
The posters there consider the Unix Philosophy to be outdated and not a good argument against systemd.
Interestingly, the link I posted last week avoided Unix Philosophy and was purely technical, and actually quite detailed. The comments didn't seem overly negative toward it. I'm not sure if it's because the commenters didn't feel like reading it all, weren't able to understand it, or what. I've never seem them unable to squish around mere technical concerns, before.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | The posters there consider the Unix Philosophy to be outdated and not a good argument against systemd. |
I don't understand how anyone with a comp sci background can consider fundamentals outdated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6065
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | depontius wrote: | | The posters there consider the Unix Philosophy to be outdated and not a good argument against systemd. |
I don't understand how anyone with a comp sci background can consider fundamentals outdated. |
you are assuming they are taught fundamentals... I am dealing with some software engineers that do not understand the concept of signed or unsigned at the register level. They are soo abstracted away from actual hardware they follow DSP app notes and in this instance a TI dsp states its output is 16bit UNSIGNED. We are arguing with them that it doesn't matter what the so called IO block is, just pack the register that you feed as being 16bit signed... They could not grasp there was no difference between 0xFFFF at the register level between -1 and 65535 as it was down to how the data is interpreted.
Now consider a similar thing at OS classes... they could be soo abstracted away that they see no benefit & only see something that is cumbersome.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | depontius wrote: | | The posters there consider the Unix Philosophy to be outdated and not a good argument against systemd. |
I don't understand how anyone with a comp sci background can consider fundamentals outdated. |
you are assuming they are taught fundamentals... I am dealing with some software engineers that do not understand the concept of signed or unsigned at the register level. They are soo abstracted away from actual hardware they follow DSP app notes and in this instance a TI dsp states its output is 16bit UNSIGNED. We are arguing with them that it doesn't matter what the so called IO block is, just pack the register that you feed as being 16bit signed... They could not grasp there was no difference between 0xFFFF at the register level between -1 and 65535 as it was down to how the data is interpreted.
Now consider a similar thing at OS classes... they could be soo abstracted away that they see no benefit & only see something that is cumbersome. |
Well that is depressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | They could not grasp there was no difference between 0xFFFF at the register level between -1 and 65535 as it was down to how the data is interpreted. |
Pitiful. They should study carpentry instead. Then they might do something useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Naib wrote: | | They could not grasp there was no difference between 0xFFFF at the register level between -1 and 65535 as it was down to how the data is interpreted. |
Pitiful. They should study carpentry instead. Then they might do something useful. |
But a board could be 45 inches or 114.3 centimetres depending upon how you interpret it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buffoon
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jun 2015
Posts: 1369
Location: EU or US
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | depontius wrote: | | The posters there consider the Unix Philosophy to be outdated and not a good argument against systemd. |
I don't understand how anyone with a comp sci background can consider fundamentals outdated. |
We have IT technicians here, certified, working in corporate environment. They knew Linux exists, but they didn't know Windows programs do not run on Linux. One of them told me Unix was not allowed to use backslash because MS patented it ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Buffoon wrote: | | One of them told me Unix was not allowed to use backslash because MS patented it ... |
I wouldn't doubt it. They seem to have trademarked the term "PC" which was common long before they came along and "Window". Maybe the term "computer" for all I know. Too bad they didn't copyright the English word for "merde". At least it would have been appropriate! ATTENTION L.P. It's available! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3522
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Buffoon wrote: | | One of them told me Unix was not allowed to use backslash because MS patented it ... |
I wouldn't doubt it. They seem to have trademarked the term "PC" which was common long before they came along and "Window". Maybe the term "computer" for all I know. Too bad they didn't copyright the English word for "merde". At least it would have been appropriate! ATTENTION L.P. It's available! |
One of those places where grey hairs can be an advantage. When DOS 1.0 came out, it used the "/" as a command line parameter switch, instead of the normal Unix "-". I don't know why they did that, I don't think Unix was even on the radar screen when they did. When DOS 2.0 came out to add hard drive support, they need a hierarchical separator, and which point they must have looked at Unix. The "/" was used up already, so they went with the "\".
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6065
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Tony0945 wrote: | | Buffoon wrote: | | One of them told me Unix was not allowed to use backslash because MS patented it ... |
I wouldn't doubt it. They seem to have trademarked the term "PC" which was common long before they came along and "Window". Maybe the term "computer" for all I know. Too bad they didn't copyright the English word for "merde". At least it would have been appropriate! ATTENTION L.P. It's available! |
One of those places where grey hairs can be an advantage. When DOS 1.0 came out, it used the "/" as a command line parameter switch, instead of the normal Unix "-". I don't know why they did that, I don't think Unix was even on the radar screen when they did. When DOS 2.0 came out to add hard drive support, they need a hierarchical separator, and which point they must have looked at Unix. The "/" was used up already, so they went with the "\". |
Unix was released in 1973 and MSDOS 1.0 in 1981. POSIX was formalised in the late 80's but it was written based upon implementation rather than written to influence implementation (ok later development then had a clear standard to reference and V&V against)
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miket
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 497
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Tony0945 wrote: | | Buffoon wrote: | | One of them told me Unix was not allowed to use backslash because MS patented it ... |
I wouldn't doubt it. They seem to have trademarked the term "PC" which was common long before they came along and "Window". Maybe the term "computer" for all I know. Too bad they didn't copyright the English word for "merde". At least it would have been appropriate! ATTENTION L.P. It's available! |
One of those places where grey hairs can be an advantage. When DOS 1.0 came out, it used the "/" as a command line parameter switch, instead of the normal Unix "-". I don't know why they did that, I don't think Unix was even on the radar screen when they did. When DOS 2.0 came out to add hard drive support, they need a hierarchical separator, and which point they must have looked at Unix. The "/" was used up already, so they went with the "\". |
It's a sad tale. Did you remember that MS-DOS was intended to offer an easy upgrade path from the prevalent CP/M on 8080 machines up to the wide world of the 16-bit 8086? Intel had already made it so that 8086 instruction set was similar enough to the 8080's set so that a translator program could convert 8080 assembly source code to usable 8086 source. MS-DOS did the same thing on the OS side: it exposed an execution environment (including the Program Segment Prefix) and a API compatible with CP/M. One implication of this is that MS-DOS inherited CP/M's command-line conventions and file formats.
This is the Too Bad part. Gary Kildall, the implementer of CP/M, took his cues from his development system, a PDP-10 running TOPS. Ah, this system had all of DEC's bad habits, like slash as the character to indicate a command-line switch, CRLF as the line-termination marker, and control-Z as the end-of-file marker. Unix existed at the time, but it was still barely known outside of AT&T.
The funny thing is that MS-DOS had closer compatibility to CP/M-80 than did CP/M-86 when it eventually came out. I think we would have been better off with the break in compatibility.
MS-DOS v2 was a huge improvement over v1. Unix influence finally arrived in DOS world, but unfortunately MS did not strip away enough of CP/M. I thought at the time that it was STU-PID to keep using slash as the switch character and forcing the use of backslash as a pathname separator. After all, I had been a TRS-DOS user rather than a CP/M user, and in TRS-DOS the switch character was the hyphen. (TRS-DOS also used the single CR or LF to act as the line terminator.) The big explosion of software came with 16-bit systems: there weren't that many scripts--or that many programs--to convert at the time. They should have done the switchover to something more like | Code: | | type -p c:/some/file.txt |
rather than what we had to do in MS-DOS: | Code: | | type /p c:\some\file.txt |
On my own machines, I even took advantage of an undocumented MS-DOS API function to set the switch character. If the character was something other than a slash, COMMAND.COM would then accept slash as the pathname separator. This never got noticed, and the feature went away.
Now if MS had patented the backslash as pathname separator and then no one would use it because of its being patented, then maybe we'd have sanity in that regard. Well no. I hate to think about the terabytes of extra data around because of needing to escape the backslashes in files and to end lines with two characters whereas one character would do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3522
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | Unix was released in 1973 and MSDOS 1.0 in 1981. POSIX was formalised in the late 80's but it was written based upon implementation rather than written to influence implementation (ok later development then had a clear standard to reference and V&V against) |
I didn't say Unix didn't exist, I said it wasn't on their radar screen. They simply weren't looking in that direction, at least not yet. They were looking at things like QDOS and CP/M.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | Unix was released in 1973 and MSDOS 1.0 in 1981. POSIX was formalised in the late 80's but it was written based upon implementation rather than written to influence implementation (ok later development then had a clear standard to reference and V&V against) |
| depontius wrote: | | I didn't say Unix didn't exist, I said it wasn't on their radar screen. They simply weren't looking in that direction, at least not yet. They were looking at things like QDOS and CP/M. |
As competition, perhaps, but they'd always known of UNIX, just like everyone else, and in fact better than most. That's what lay behind Gates' infamous "C'mon guys, we've got to get paid" email. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as "Unix Philosophy" goes
| Quote: | "Linux" is just a kernel, so stuff in user-space certainly isn't "Linux".
It also certainly isn't "Unix" as that is fairly dead |
| Quote: | | One of the big weaknesses of the "do one job and do it well" approach is that those individual tools didn't really combine very well |
They didn't combine well because no one made them combine well. It wasn't for a lack of capability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | One of the big weaknesses of the "do one job and do it well" approach is that those individual tools didn't really combine very well |
Lol, yeah right: and we're not all running UNIX-philosophy machines right now, and those aren't in fact where all the tools currently vying to close down our options were developed from, using UNIX-philosophy tools like cc, make, awk, yacc, etc...
Wake me up when you guys get a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Quote: | | One of the big weaknesses of the "do one job and do it well" approach is that those individual tools didn't really combine very well |
Lol, yeah right: and we're not all running UNIX-philosophy machines right now, and those aren't in fact where all the tools currently vying to close down our options were developed from, using UNIX-philosophy tools like cc, make, awk, yacc, etc...
Wake me up when you guys get a clue. |
You're living in the past, man. Computers are completely different, now. </sarcasm> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
