To the Anti-UNIX spammer

Stop posting emails from Anti-UNIX Usenet groups made in the early 1990's. You fail to realize that they are only sore losers in a culture war when you can read about in "A Brief History of Hackerdom" by Eric S. Raymond. They are ironic hipsters mad that UNIX won over their sad little LISP culture surrounding the PDP10. Anything they have to say is pointless, and many of them used UNIX anyway. Don't like UNIX, use Plan 9 then faggot.

Other urls found in this thread:

stopped reading right there


fuck you

No, Fuck You!

All me



get it? it's parenthesis. you can laugh now.

Hating UNIX is about losing: losing time working around bullshit that has no logical explanation, losing data to UNIX bugs and misdesigned programs, losing your mind whenever you look up a bug that caused you trouble and find a post from 1991 that says the bug hasn't been fixed for years because UNIX weenies don't consider it a bug. I hate UNIX because I'm tired of losing.

Weenies blame research, standards, the web, user error, everybody is doing it, and other bullshit for UNIX bugs and misfeatures. There was once a time when all that bullshit was called out for what it is. That's why they don't like these posts.

Doesn't it give you that warm, confident feeling to know that things aren't Quite Right, but that you'll have to wait 'til you need something to know Just What? Life on the Edge. Get with the program -- remember -- 90% is good enough. If it's good enough for Ritchie, it's good enough for me!"It's State of the Art!" "But it doesn't work!" "That ISthe State of the Art!"Alternatively: "If it worked, it wouldn't be research!"The only problem is, outside of the demented heads of theUnix weenies, Unix is neither State of the Art nor research!

If there's one thing which truly pisses me off, it is theattempt to pretend that there is anything vaguely "academic"about this stuff. I mean, can you think of anything closerto hell on earth than a "conference" full of unix geekspresenting their oh-so-rigourous "papers" on, say, "SMURFY:An automatic cron-driven fsck-daemon"?I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor hasno clothes. The problem is a generation of swine -- bothprogrammers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unixcomes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularlysusceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionarySoviet emigres.)These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believingthat not only is better possible, but that better could haveonce existed in the world before driven out by worse. Well,perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for someincidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labsor Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn'texpressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only wepaid more heed to the true, original strains of the unixcreed!) In particular, I would like to see such an article separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation bugs.My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of thematerial which is the subject of this list, is that the twoare inseparable. The "fundamental design flaw" of unix isan -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is goodenough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of usersand programmers should be hostage to the convenience orlaziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one'stime should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledgeshould be regarded as provisional at best and expendable ata moment's notice.My view is that flaming about some cretin using afixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just asmuch about unix as pointing out that this operating systemof the future has a process scheduler out of the dark agesor a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or systemcalls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much asit is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure arerevealed to us through any examination of the minutiae ofany implementation, especially when we remember that onecornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really nomore than the sum of its individual parts. (Puny tools forpuny users.)And speaking of revealing patterns of abuse throughobservation of detail, has anybody considered that unixgeeks might be Adult Children or Survivors or be permanentlyIn Recovery? Perhaps they were sodomised by an awk at ayoung age, leading to a parodoxical attachment to the agentof their humiliation? If we could persuade them them tospend all their time attending pop-psych workshops in thewoods ("Fire in the John"), beating drums and invoking theshade of Dennis Ritchie, we could keep them away from theirkeyboards...

Congratulations. You've just ensured that he will never, ever stop posting the Unix haters stuff here. I don't personally care, but you do, and your thread is counterproductive.

I have faith that someday, even retards like you will figure out that the best way to handle things you don't like online is just to ignore them until they go away. Or ignore them even if they don't. Either way, just ignore them.

Yeah I can relate. Trying to do asynchronous I/O on Linux with anything that's not a socket is fucking painful. User space libraries just wrap the whole thing up on top of threads and call it a day.

Why the FUCK can't I just give the kernel a buffer and go do something else while it somehow copies X bytes into it off of some I/O source, and also get a file descriptor back so I can epoll it to check if it's completed? Why the fuck does this have to be so hard? Holy fucking shit.

Also, do you have an answer for how to handle SIGSEGV properly? I gave up.

retards vs retards

Well gee sucks that you can't use that thing... what was it? Oh right there isn't such thing, it's all wrapped around threads or sockets somehow.


The problem isn't UNIX, the problem is corprate *NIX's changes that fucked it over.

What a very particular issue, you want to bloat the kernel with some novice garbage like that? Besides, that's not what the Unix haters mean, because Unix is WAY better than anything DEC or VAX at any kind of I/O

Are you fucking kidding me? This is basic shit.

You know UNIX was and has always been a corporate thing right.

UNIX is more than a system, it is a design philosophy. Despite nay-sayers like Xah Lee that claim the philosophy was only buzz words and advertising, the UNIX way is fundementally beautiful. All these UNIX Haters seem to think that SystemV and BSD4 are UNIX proper, and are critiquing UNIX as a whole instead of the individual system. Other complaints by UNIX haters include X11. I don't like X11. Again, if you don't like UNIX use it's less-succesful successor Plan 9, which is essentially a do-over "Unix after Unix".

Unix as a "corporate thing" came long-after the original development when Bell Labs licensed it to multiple firms that corrupted it. Unix is beautiful, and men in suites didn't care to learn about it and only wanted quick-solution to problems already solved.

You mean that original development by the research division of a mega corp

Bell Labs was a scientific field. You're the kind of guy that thinks that the National Science Foundation is a military operation, aren't you?


Some day you will realize that barely anyone reads through copy-pasted walls of text that you invested zero of your own thinking in.
You are the equivalent of someone posting unrelated wikipedia articles in their full size to IRC channels - maybe that's where you belong.

They were given enough money and liberty to not just be a corporate R&D lair.

This. I've said it and I'll continue saying it, UNIX (and POSIX) is a poor implementation of the UNIX philosophy. This philosophy mainly being "tools that do one thing and do it well, that can be assembled to do greater things".
The two big problems are that the interchange format (\n delimited text) doesn't include a field concept and that there's a lot of duplicated functionalities (see all of the coreutils that can be easily supplanted by awk).
About X11, anyone who's not a newfag know it's not UNIX, but a DEC made cancer.

Right so this corporate monolith does not count.

Reminder that GNU's not Unix.

Reminder no GNU allowed on my system. BSD only.

Also, Stallman doesn't care about Unix. He started GNU because Unix was good enough and popular enough.

Asynchronous I/O is simpler than synchronous. Real operating systems like VMS turn synchronous I/O into asynchronous, which also avoids the EINTR problem (more misdesigned bullshit conveniently found only in UNIX).

That makes UNIX look even worse because university researchers didn't make these mistakes. IBM and DEC didn't make these mistakes either. These UNIX "geniuses" have more money than other people but everything they make sucks a lot more. It would explain a lot if they spent it all on shilling.

The philosophy is the fundamental problem. The broken commands are part of UNIX. Doing signals wrong is a part of the UNIX philosophy. Kernel panics and EINTR are part of the UNIX philosophy. Not fixing these problems is part of the UNIX philosophy. Multics, VMS, and Lisp machines have better design philosophies.

UNIX has always sucked. The older versions sucked even more. BSD and System V were attempts to make it not suck as much.

You'll remember unix "gurus" flaming about how evil andrepulsive and wrong file-systems with versions are (about aswrong and evil as they claimed "shared" libraries to be, asan example.)More way retro progress from the avant-garde boys at thephone company.Oh, and now you know why your Sun loses your work all thetime -- its that "translucent" filesystem.

I don't know if Minow is committing the hagiolatry oneassociates with the typical weenix unie, but I really feelthat any further mention of the reputed tear-inspiringbeauty, simplicity, symmetry, economy, etc of "V7" (orwhatever) Unix should be cause for immediate and permanentexpulsion from present company. I've seen quite a number of allusions to some downwardfall of unix even in this forum. Let's get this straightonce an for all: Unix was flawed from conception. Itsentire New-Jerseyist philosophy is flawed. In fact, itsentire "philosophy" is a Source of Evil in the Modern World. THERE WAS AND IS NO FALLING-OFF FROM A WORLD OFUNDIVIDED LIGHT. THERE WAS NO GREAT PURE, PRIMORDIAL,PRELAPSARIAN UNIX. The Unix you see, with which youstruggle, which you curse, is not a diseased and reducedremnant, but is itself the agent of disease and reduction. How can one lose sight of that?

That's where you're wrong and why every sane user just laugh at your retardation. See jewpedia for more ( Like I said, only point 2 is partly retarded (don't structure your output, hurr!).

Look man I am one of the people that agrees with you, but don't post this bullshit wall of text quotes from multiple other people.

Those all suck except for Eric Raymond's rules, which actually describe the ITS philosophy because he said "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the ITS philosophy."

My ideal OS would follow the ITS Rules of Modularity, Clarity, Composition, Separation, Simplicity, Parsimony, Transparency, Robustness, Representation, Least Surprise, Silence, Repair, Economy, Generation, Optimization, Diversity, and Extensibility exactly as described, and UNIX would be good if those rules actually described it, but they don't.

Every single quote is true.

The JARGON file is being updated. The guy doing so has changed the nasty references to Unix to refer to MS-DOS because "all the ITS partisans have now become Unix partisans, since the Unix philosophy is the same as the ITS philosophy." as he says.YAAAARRGGGH!!!If you would be gracious enough to identify this, um, Ibelieve the proper term is "loser", then we might have theopportunity to clarify our philosophical differences.

Maybe it was on someone's calendar to fix, but theynever see it because they can't run the program either. Hmm. I used to think the strength of lisp machine toolscame from the fact that the developers actually used themregularly in their work and depended on them in order todevelop everything they were going to need in the nextgeneration system. That is, I though that there was acausal link between using your own tools and making thembetter. But maybe it's not whether you use your own tools thatmakes them good, but rather that the goodness or badness ofyour tools is just magnified over time by continuing to usethem. That would explain a lot of things about Unix...

literally wat.

What you're doing is fine in principle, but some of your posts are only barely relevant. Could you keep them more strictly on-topic? A screen height's worth of usenet in every thread is too much.

Unix was usable (in the broadest sense of the word), popular, and modular in a way that made it easier to replace it one part at a time.
Stallman doesn't like Unix's design, but he doesn't hate it enough to avoid it. He did make Emacs as a sort of sanctuary away from Unix.


Stallman's goal was not a UNIX clone, but a Free as in Freedom system from the get-go. We all know this, you are the odd one out. Had he started in the 90's, GNU would probably be an MS-DOS or NT clone. He chose UNIX because of his previous experience in it, and the fact that uNIX was the popular system of the University Culture in 1984. I wish Stallman realized the beauty of the design philosophy as well, but that's anicent history now. Thankfully, since Stallman's GNU philosophy has pretty much succeeded there's not longer a need to rush its elements. Now, that pretty much the whole system is done (que GNU Herd joke) the developers are focusing on code quality. it is an observable change. The system has been adopted, and we are free-er. Now it's time to make it nicer.

Please start using same name in every thread so I can ignore your mentally ill opinions. Take your meds.

It's probably just some 15 year old on Mount Stupid who found the Unix-Hater's Handbook and Usenet, and thinks that the UNIX-Haters are the only true people.

The UNIX weenies are a great example of Mount Stupid. People on Mount Stupid blame the users instead of the OS because they don't have enough knowledge to tell why UNIX sucks. They can't tell whether UNIX signals are better or worse than Multics signals or whether VMS I/O is better or worse than UNIX EINTR and I/O.

Before Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you think it's stupid.
When you're on Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you read all the man pages and you memorize all the trivia about every option and ioctl and "impress" everyone with your knowledge of switch "scope" and 0099 actually being an octal number and other bullshit.
After Mount Stupid, you see UNIX bullshit and you know all the man pages and you memorize all the trivia about every option and ioctl and warn everyone with your knowledge of switch "scope" and 0099 actually being an octal number and other bullshit and you think it's stupid.

Of course, used to the usual unix weenie response of"no, the tool's not broken, it was user error" the poor usersadly (and incorrectly) concluded that it was human error,not unix braindamage, which led to his travails.


So you are a 15 year old high-school student? I'm not hearing no. Have you any experience whatsoever other than "This person who was somebody to three people said something in 1992 and it was published in a book. It must be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I read him."

Dude, you might have a good point or two, the problem is that you shit your opinions all over every thread and use very pompous language in the process.
The pompous language makes me hate you and the spam makes me hate your opinions.
Just cool your jets, dude.

Unix is kiked