Re: alt.religion.your.operating.system.sucks
Spif wrote:
UNIX? user hostile? where have you been lately?
Well, maybe unix gets its reputation for being hostile because of things like * many commands don't work fully (find, for example) * a large portion choke on input that isn't "expected" * many more do extremely poor input checking, * the configuration files are bizarre * different version have command with different options (stty everything, ps -ef vs. ps -aux, etc.) * each version is slightly different (ever try porting a non-trivial program? Look at some available large software and examine the #ifdef #define #endif statements; look at the differences in system calls. Hell, look at the "config" program that comes with PERL - 80K of stuff to build a make file for the flavor of UNIX you are using!) * the commands don't combine well (often uuencode + sendmail == garbage) * many commands accept a slightly different regular expression syntax than the shell does * the commands aren't built with ease of use in mind. For example, to kill a process under unix requires that I know it's process id. How do I find that? Run another command...
ever hear of X windows?
X-Windows is an extreme pain to get working. Sure, if you buy your unix workstation the manufacturer will pre-install it. Just try setting it up from scratch.
On Sun, 29 Jan 1995 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:
Spif wrote:
UNIX? user hostile? where have you been lately?
Well, maybe unix gets its reputation for being hostile because of things like
* many commands don't work fully (find, for example)
find works just fine for me... there's also "whereis", in case you didn't know...
* a large portion choke on input that isn't "expected"
so it give it "expected" input... since when does DOS like "unexpected" input, anyhow?
* many more do extremely poor input checking,
could we see an example of this? I have yet to find one.
* the configuration files are bizarre
again, provide an example. again, I have yet to see one.
* different version have command with different options (stty everything, ps -ef vs. ps -aux, etc.)
different operating systems have differences... the differences between IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS are a good example.
* each version is slightly different (ever try porting a non-trivial program? Look at some available large software and examine the #ifdef #define #endif statements; look at the differences in system calls. Hell, look at the "config" program that comes with PERL - 80K of stuff to build a make file for the flavor of UNIX you are using!)
again, different OSes are different... you don't expect every company to make the same UNIX, do you? what point would there be in cloning each other?
* the commands don't combine well (often uuencode + sendmail == garbage)
I've never encountered this... perhaps because I uuencode things and THEN send them rather than trying to pipe a uuencode into mail.
* many commands accept a slightly different regular expression syntax than the shell does
again, does DOS *not* do this?
* the commands aren't built with ease of use in mind. For example, to kill a process under unix requires that I know it's process id. How do I find that? Run another command...
at least UNIX gives you the option of killing a process in the first place... I can remember having to reboot DOS and fiddling with multiple configuration hassles just to clear a device driver out in order to solve an incompability problem with another program.
ever hear of X windows?
X-Windows is an extreme pain to get working. Sure, if you buy your unix workstation the manufacturer will pre-install it. Just try setting it up from scratch.
I've done it. Several times. Within minutes, each time. And I'm not a guru, either. And, as you've pointed out, I wouldn't have had to do even that if I was working with an already-setup system. Bryan Venable | c642011@cclabs.missouri.edu Student & MOO Administrator | wlspif@showme.missouri.edu U of Missouri - Columbia | spif@pobox.com SGI/Netscape/MOO addict | spif@m-net.arbornet.org Spif or Turmandir @ MOOs | http://www.phlab.missouri.edu/~c642011 <insert standard university disclaimer here>
Does this stupid OS flamewar have *anything* to do with cypher? No. Could it *PLEASE* be taken somewhere else? Ryan Snyder, Consultant & Gopher Admin | "I've never seen a bigger group of University of Montana | collectively angry, humorless, -=>[Populus vult decipi!]<=- | arrogant, bitter, gloomy-gus, pinback@access.digex.net re:netizens--> FROWNY-FACED people in my whole life."
On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, Name Withheld By Request wrote:
Does this stupid OS flamewar have *anything* to do with cypher? No.
Could it *PLEASE* be taken somewhere else?
Yea, like the UNIX-HATERS mailing list, or the appropriate comp.*.advocacy group. I read this list to hear about *cypherpunks*, and while it is true that a good cypherpunk will write code, he/she should do so under the OS of his/her choice and not engage in OS holy wars. There need to be good cypherpunk tools for *ALL* operating systems/enviroments, flaming people over their operating system is not a good way to accomplish this. -- Christopher E Stefan * flatline@u.washington.edu * PGP 2.6ui key by request
I'd have replied in private mail, but Mr. Embarassing here can't be reached by mail... anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com says:
Well, maybe unix gets its reputation for being hostile because of things like
* many commands don't work fully (find, for example)
Haven't found a bug in find since '85.
* a large portion choke on input that isn't "expected"
Such as?
* many more do extremely poor input checking,
Such as?
* the configuration files are bizarre
Yup. Shell scripts as the startup scripts for the machine are really hard to understand. The simple list of newsgroup names to configure the news readers are impossible to grok, too. Not.
* different version have command with different options (stty everything, ps -ef vs. ps -aux, etc.)
And of course, DOS has never added options to new versions of the system.
* each version is slightly different (ever try porting a non-trivial program?
Yup. Recently, I ported about 80,000 lines of code in a day. It wasn't much of a challenge -- because I knew how to program, of course. I had to hack some compatibility libraries, and it took about another day and a half to back-patch the original sources so that the program compiled without problems on both architectures.
Hell, look at the "config" program that comes with PERL - 80K of stuff to build a make file for the flavor of UNIX you are using!)
Thats because its fully automated. Would you prefer to do the job by hand? Remember, Unix handles things that PCs never even dreamed of -- like endianness considerations, which you don't get if you are chained by the ankle to one shitty processor.
* the commands don't combine well (often uuencode + sendmail == garbage)
I've never seen that, but then again I'm just on drugs. Naturally, of course, no DOS programs have ever crapped out.
* many commands accept a slightly different regular expression syntax than the shell does
The shell doesn't accept regular expression syntax, so this shouldn't be the least bit suprising.
* the commands aren't built with ease of use in mind. For example, to kill a process under unix requires that I know it's process id.
Not at all true -- you can use skill, or if a process is a current job you can do stuff in most shells like kill %procname
ever hear of X windows?
X-Windows is an extreme pain to get working. Sure, if you buy your unix workstation the manufacturer will pre-install it. Just try setting it up from scratch.
So buy it precompiled. Lots of people sell it that way. I can't imagine that Windows would be easy to install if you got it in source form. .pm
On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:07:37 -0500 From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: alt.religion.your.operating.system.sucks
I'd have replied in private mail, but Mr. Embarassing here can't be reached by mail...
anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com says:
Well, maybe unix gets its reputation for being hostile because of things like
* many commands don't work fully (find, for example)
Haven't found a bug in find since '85.
* a large portion choke on input that isn't "expected"
Such as?
Perry, I listed a huge number of the things that anonymous is complaining about, under the thread heading "Even more holy war on unix" I listed them precisely in response to flames like yours challenging me to name such things. If you ask "Such as" then someone is going to answer again. The Holy Warriors of the Sacred Unix demand facts, then scream like nasty children when someone answers this demand. They say "Put up or shut up", and then send a torrent of savage hate mail when somebody puts up. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com
On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
Perry, I listed a huge number of the things that anonymous is complaining about, under the thread heading "Even more holy war on unix"
I listed them precisely in response to flames like yours challenging me to name such things.
If you ask "Such as" then someone is going to answer again.
The Holy Warriors of the Sacred Unix demand facts, then scream like nasty children when someone answers this demand.
Did I miss something? Was there a posting of facts amoungst those volumes inimformed opinions?
They say "Put up or shut up", and then send a torrent of savage hate mail when somebody puts up.
Yes it so sad when people hold opions that differ from your's
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com
Brian Beattie | [From an MIT job ad] "Applicants must also have | extensive knowledge of UNIX, although they should beattie@csos.orst.edu | have sufficently good programming taste to not Fax (503)754-3406 | consider this an achievement."
participants (7)
-
anonymous-remailerï¼ shell.portal.com -
Brian Beattie -
Christopher E Stefan -
James A. Donald -
Name Withheld By Request -
Perry E. Metzger -
Spif