“Most people want their computer to be like their TV set: you buy it, plug it in, and it works perfectly for the next 10 years. Suffice it to say that current computers—and especially their operating systems—are not even close. We will consider the job done when the average user has never experienced a system crash in his or her lifetime and no computer has a RESET button.”
What went wrong?
Other urls found in this thread:
this is pure cancer
We can't even make a simple hammer that'l last for that long without any maintainance.
TVs don’t even work that good and who wants using a computer to be a subscription fee like cable? This is just more cloud botnet buzzword bait.
This guy must be retarded.
That basically describes modern Smartphones. Computers designed PURELY for consumption and not for productivity that's designed to sandbox the user as much as possible to prevent system crashes
VMS, AS/400, MVS, and Tandem NonStop were famous for running for more than a decade without any maintenance or reboot. What went wrong is that the AT&T attitude of not caring spread to the rest of the computer world because of C and UNIX. If AT&T built TVs, we would be wondering why "nobody" can build a TV that's reliable as a computer.
After describing how much we know about makingcomputer hardware which is fault-tolerant... So, what other problems do we have? UNIX. Unix is a standard brought to us by academia.... Why do "we" get all the blame? AT&T spawned this virus.Perhaps we are at fault for not rising to the occassion andwritting an anti-toxin which vaccinated machines to curethem of the virus. Hmm, perhaps that was what RTM's wormwas really after (after all, it did only affect UNIXmachines...).
by the way why is it that CS is just full of jews compared to other fields?
What operating system do most of those phones run? BSD and Linux, both UNIX-like and written in C. UNIX is not designed for productivity, but it's not designed for consumption either. Smartphone apps crash and the user blames the hardware. They say "the phone" is the problem, not UNIX. AT&T is still getting some of the blame for downtime caused by software bugs, but not for the real cause of the problem.
The Lisp machine, where you could change everything down to the microcode, was more reliable than UNIX because it signaled and handled errors when UNIX would dump core or silently fail. The reliable systems that stay up for decades are multi-user, so I can create a user for you and you can do anything I let you without making it crash or doing anything you aren't allowed to do, but that's because the OS works, not because of a sandbox. The sandbox seems like another part of the UNIX methodology.
This article is indicative of the UNIX methodology; ifyour daemon process stays up for 24 hours straight withoutcoredumping or just vanishing into a puff of smoke, you'redoing great! And if not, here's an elegant solution: No really, this is the way all system software will workin the future; No one can REALLY debug software, even ifthey did have access the sources. I mean, why did the theLisp Machine go to all the trouble of signalling andcatching exceptional conditions, and so on (condition-case),when it's so much simpler to wait and see if your processdies, oh every 60 seconds or so, and start another one? Ofcourse what if your process which is watching your otherprocess dies mysteriously? Well, start another one!
If your lisp system was so good and had no downsides compared to UNIX, we would be seeing it everywhere.
But it's not. It died, and most likely for a good reason.
Your whiny ramblings are the technological equivalent of "DEY TOOK ARE JERBS!!" It's not anyone else's fault that UNIX won. It's yours, and whoever else was involved with that lisp machine autism.
They are also absolute garbage. Nobody wanted to use them, wchi is why everyone moved on to 4.4BSD and UNIX. I thought you'd stopped spamming this shit, why are you back?
Not him, but people "moved to UNIX" because Bell Labs was a telecoms company and UNIX was built for telephony equipment Mike automatic switch boards. When the internet and world wide web came to prominence it only made sense to adopt UNIX and eventually Linux for compatibility reasons. It's just history. The people who left VMS didn't go to UNIX, they moved on to Windows NT.
Again, not him, and sage for doublepost. But companies like Google adopted Linux as the kernel for Android because again, their server infrastructure and most of the worlds telecommunications infrastructure uses Linux as a backbone. Again, not because it was good, but because its compatible with Bell Labs software. Its history. The Hater Handbook poster has a point
Reset buttons are bloat. Just unplug the power cord.
You don't seriously think that Linux was chosen as Android's kernel because of compatibility with "Bell Labs software", do you?
They picked Linux because it has an endless supply of pajeets to remind their employees that they're just replaceable cogs who shouldn't get a big head. Also we'll need you to come in on Saturday. Oh and Sunday too, and you better have a cover on that TPS report.
I doubt anyone ever gave a fuck that the system ran on switch boards. Unix got popular in academia because it was reasonably easy to obtain and would run on many different machines. Linux eventually showed up with the promise of an indie Unix-like system that was legally open to tinker and share. So they tinkered with it enough to make it a complete, reliable, widely ported system. Then the internet exploded, and people needed something good and cheap to run servers, so it was the obvious choice.
You misunderstand me. UNIX from an early point became relegated to telephonhy, and this DNA is the reason why Linux became adopted as the choice software for servers.
That is completely wrong. UNIX was originally proprietary software and UNIX System V was purely an enterprise-oriented OS
It was proprietary, but the source code was relatively easy to obtain and it was relatively easy to port. And original-original Unix was a research system.
BSDi and FreeBSD were much better choices for server OS in the 90's. A lot of people went to Linux for same reason a lot of people went to Python: they started making "easy" distros for 1D10T's who didn't know their ass from a socket but still wanted to run a web server (without paying for Windows NT).
I know you're memeing, but power cycling stresses the hardware.
Your mind on BSD.
all of academia is filled with jews, it's part of their propaganda and control system just like MSM.
Lmao BSD is officially cucked garbage.
Universities have been turned into UNIX shill cults. It's not just Lisp machines they don't talk about. This PDF reads like an AT&T advertisement for UNIX.
Selfishness explains a lot about UNIX.
That's the opposite of the truth. These OSes are more reliable, faster, more productive, have better interfaces, and support more users than UNIX. UNIX weenies don't want you to be more productive because it would make you better than them.
For reasons I'm ashamed to admit, I am taking an "Introto Un*x" course. (Partly to give me a reason to get back onthis list...) Last night the instructor stated "BeforeUn*x, no file system had a tree structure." I almostscreamed out "Bullshit!" but stopped myself just in time. I knew beforehand this guy definitely wasn't playingwith a full deck, but can any of the old-timers on this listplease tell me which OS was the first with a tree-structuredfile system? My guess is Multics, in the late '60s.
Yes, and they've succeeded. Hordes of grumpy C hackers are complaining about C++ because it's too close to the right thing. Sometimes the world can be a frightening place. I've been wondering about this. I fantasize sometimesabout building better programming environments. It seemspretty clear that to be commercially viable at this pointyou'd have to start with C or C++. A painful idea, but.What really worries me is the impression that C hackersmight actively avoid anything that would raise theirproductivity. I don't quite understand this. My best guess is thatit's sort of another manifestation of the ``simpleimplementation over all other considerations'' philosophy.Namely, u-weenies have a fixed idea about how much theyshould have to know in order to program: the amount theyknow about C and unix. Any additional power would come atthe cost of having to learn something new. And they aren'twilling to make that investment in order to get greaterproductivity later. This certainly seems to be a lot of the resistance tolisp machines. ``But it's got *all* *those* *manuals*!''Yeah, but once you know that stuff you can program ten timesas fast. (Literally, I should think. I wish people woulddo studies to quantify these things.) If you think of aprogramming system as a long-term investment, it's worthspending 30% of your time for a couple years learning newstuff if it's going to give you an n-fold speed up later.
From the metroidvania-haters mailing list, 24 May 1991:
There already existed much better-designed games several years prior to both Metroid and Castlevania. But when the subject is brought up, discussions fall silent. Nobody wants to admit that game systems and home computers prior to the NES were capable of anything beyond Donkey Kong and Manic Miner. Doing so would be an admission that Nintendo is not in fact the saviour of video games, but rather a shrewd business that suckered many fools into its walled garden. And nobody likes to admit being a fool.
That's an example of a game way better than Metroid or Castlevania? The NES titles are far from perfect (as basically everything NES except SMB3 which is 9.5/10), but pls
Weren't *BSDs plagued by all those licensing issues which were settled only in the late 90s after the window of opportunity had been taken advantage of by Linux?
I think it's nothing malicious, just a matter of familiarity. Most kids didn't have home computers back then, so they never played those pioneers. But they had the NES, so they know Metroid. And there's no reason not to cherish that memory, it stands on its own very well. In fact, I dare say this: action-adventure games before Metroid were like fighting games before Street Fighter II, or FPS before Doom. Yes, the genre existed; yes, some of those games were pretty enjoyable; but when that one game came out, it got everything so right that it established a new standard and redefined everyone's expectations.
Still, I hate the "metroidvania" term, not just because the genre was done before, but because I prefer Castlevania as a strictly linear, arcade-style game.
It was more because of the superstition and apprehension that came after the BSD lawsuits. To their credit, ultimately, that issue was resolved. That's why it's called GNU/Linux, because GNU's Not Unix; the name's a testament to why it ever became relevant. What that didn't resolve was the fact that so-called copycenter licenses are still copyleft just as copyleft is a technique within copyright, making them just as hypocritical by their own logic as the freetards whom they're so disdainful of. The irony is that the utilitarian appeal of the simplicity of copycenter licenses is precisely why said licenses are so technically flawed and thus so legally dangerous. This is conveniently ignored because such advocates rely on the fact that big corporations don't have the financial incentive to abuse copycenter projects even if the power structure is such that they're in a position to do so.
Copycenter is that place where you go and pay a few cents to make a copy of paper or print a photo.
My computer has a reset button. If it crashes, I just push it once and the computer is restarted. If I didn't have a restart button, but only an on/off button I'd hold it down until it shut down. If I only had an on button, I'd unplug the computer.
Torvalds looks measured and not angery in that pic. The tone that news outlets present of Torvalds makes him sound like a schizophrenic paranoid. The reality is that he's almost always raging when people try to shove garbage into his got. Good find.
I don't understand why they keep doing it for free yet whine when corporations don't throw shekkels their way.
For the sake of copycenter, I wish people would distinguish copycenter from open source. I remember reading in some awful handbook for retarded sysadmins called something like "The Linux Bible" a paragraph that attributed RMS as the "founder of OSS", open source software. Just another idiot, I know, but I think it's kind of indicative of the state of our community that a lot of us don't even realize that "open source" was a term coined after copyleft and free software was a concerted movement.
First there was copycenter, which was then called copycenter, coined far prior to BSD and existed simply as a means to an end for programmers to share stuff with each other. It was reactionary, but only in the snarky, haker-ey sense. At that time everything was still basically copyright; people shared stuff the way neighbors shared home videos, and legal repercussions weren't so much of an issue because sharing was a small-scale thing. And then the copyleft/copycenter dichotomy happened with the advent of the free software movement. You have to remember that copycenter was always and still is copyleft. When we say copyleft, what we really mean is strong copyleft. The difference is that the former was only concerned with freedom 0, the right to execute code on your own hardware; whereas the latter cared about the logical extensions to freedom 0, the right to execute code on your own hardware within and by means of a community of peoples. This isn't to say copycenter doesn't acknowledge the social nature of copyleft: they're just not as explicit about it. Above it all, all copyleft is still copyright. We live in a post-copyright world, and we can't go back to public domain. Copycenter is and always has been a reactionary movement since the moment it was coined, "Copycenter, all wrongs reserved". Maybe on a small scale if you're a Julian Assange-type, but definitely not in enterprise. It's naive and impractical. Copycenter proponents pretend like their work is public domain, but they're hypocrites, because all copyleft is copyright. There is public domain within copycenter; however, that's only in reaction to strong copyleft; e.g. public domain exists in copycenter within the holes in copyleft.
A lot of copycenter projects identify as open source because they don't like the FSF, whether because they don't like the GPL's interpretation of the three other freedoms or they don't like the idea of strong copyleft in itself beyond freedom 0. But I don't think that means copycenter is open source, or else we'd have a lot less "open source"-loving assholes shitposting on their Macbooks. I don't think they're hypocrites, thought, actually because I've come to realize that open source is actually a reactionary movement within a reactionary movement (copyleft), in that it's copyleft minus freedom 0--the three other freedoms that are logical extensions of freedom 0 without 0 itself. It's because of that open source is so equally hospitable to free software projects (anything that supports freedom 0 including copycenter) and proprietary "MacOS is BSD" douchebags alike.
Yes, I know this is an autistic rant. I just had to get it off my chest.
They do it because they hate Stallman more than they hate being cucked by proprietary software.
i swear jews and their idiotic names
I can't ever make heads nor tails from your posts, dude. There's just no context for it. I've no idea whatsoever what you M.O. is.
I normally just lurk here but he makes this board much more interesting to read
also it won't work if it has a battery