Linux - 70s architecture

>Linux or Windows in the 70s

Flying is inefficient.

Flying is bloat

I wish web pages followed 70s design principles. 'Progress' is shit like web 3.0

>Music - 1500s architecture
>Painting - 1600s architecture
>Relativity - 1910s architecture
>Quantum mechanics - 1920s architecture

You - Retard architecture

Life - 0001s architecture

>wanting to get rid of x86 cause you HATE gamers

we also use nearly original tty driver (with removed baud rate I admit) to handle your input
can't even properly detect key up event, piece of trash

This

Linux is a functional copy of 70-80s tech, namely Unix, where the Unixes were all Very Expensive And Exclusive Tech(TM). Linux did popularize Unix, but it has never invented anything (I might be missing some niche linux-only thing here like some stupidly special handling of /dev or something but I'm pretty sure I'm 99% safe here). That Linux began in the 90s means nothing. Innovation-wise it's been null.

and it was a design copy of already existing systems

Linux is a kernel retard it has nothing to do with anything you mentioned

because somehow UNIX did not have a kernel?

Computers aren't stuck, only some people are.
*Posted from Fuchsia running on RISC-V from a Servo-based browser written in Rust*

>*Posted from Fuchsia running on RISC-V from a Servo-based browser written in Rust*
proof or didn't happen

Because instead of actually innovating shit, people chose to clone Unix over and over instead, and autists sperg out whenever something doesn't follow "muh Unix philosophy".

Have you ever heard of Multics and Lisp machines? We already had better shit before Unix was ever conceived.

Of course C and Unix were influential. They doomed the next 60 years or so in computing.

> Lisp machines
> better at anything
Daily reminder Lisp Machines had to be rebooted twice a day (which took like half an hour) because they just leak memory by design. I mean, it was an interesting attempt, but the eventual failure was fully deserved - it was an overpriced barely working shit.

ayy lmao

Attached: lmao.png (549x413, 108K)

"Java is slow"
"Garbage collectors don't work perfectly for years"
"Earth is flat"

Because anyone who bothers to make a hard cut either does something retarded or doesn't put in enough effort.

I'm all for tearing down Linux or at least the userland tools that come with GNU.

Pure text as a base format was a good idea when computers barely had memory and storage, but now it's holding us back.
Structured text would be infinitely better.

Because the west was still white in the 70s.

Attached: 1542123530042.jpg (437x501, 46K)

I can understand this from a business perspective, as it's a case of job security.
Same with Cisco's IOS. Obtuse as fuck, but that means there's less competition for network administrators.

However, the hobbyist who are so infatuated with keeping the status quo are fucking baffling. I assume it's a genuine case of a large base of actual autists who are defending all aspects of Unix and/or Linux to the death.

Linux is actually pretty innovative, both at the kernel and the userspace levels, see the adoption of systemd and the eventual adoption of wayland for example. If you really wanna see some depressing stagnation, check out BSD, especially OpenBSD. I mean, they still use CVS.

Nice b8, troll

Tell us how that would work better, or how it's holding us back, or tell something. Kudos if it's true.

Prove me wrong, grandpa.

It would remove the need for most of the text transformation tools that are currently mandatory for doing anything that involves parsing results of anything.
With structured text, there would be no more need to worry about delimiters and the like. Columns could also be named instead of numbered, making it easier to change column layouts in a file without affecting pre-existing scripts.
This would also allow us to have an entirely different class of transformation tools - instead of cutting and splicing text, you could be able to have a variety of views created by parsing column headers in different ways.
Imagine if you could use ip but have an output as readable as ifconfig. It would still be effort, but less effort than transforming a formatted text stream with sed.

In addition, if there was a structured text standard we would also have a standard for configurations. Having all configs in the same format will allow us to have a good selection of universal configuration tools.
Bonus points for having the standard involve a setup where possible config options, as well as documentation of options, can be added. If that was the case, we could automatically parse config files and create decent graphical configuration screens with barely any effort.
For example, think of how xinput has a profile for removal of mouse acceleration, but Ubuntu (at least last time I used it) has no checkbox for disabling mouse acceleration. In this new system, you'd have a drop-down list of all profiles, with associated tooltips that explain each of them.
Naturally, this would work even better if there was a strong standard for how configs are stored, as then it would be trivial for the tool to find every config for every tool. Even better if we have a folder-based system, where the config tools could treat each config file as a tab - either that or have a format for sectioning long config files to facilitate this.

this
at least Linux does something regarding userspace virtualization, kernel testing, filesystems, ... but it's a project with extremely wide enterprise adoption, not a research kernel
hell even NetBSD did a lot of innovation lately

M$ did a lots of innovative things, too bad it's a typical corporation where great work of few individuals never hits a product

there is a reason why lisp machines never made it beyond single user personal toys
>inb4 lack of interest and adoption
see Haiku with this argument

linux is a nigger os
didn't even make it's own compiler, it's not for proffesionals you dumb nigger

...

>It would remove the need for most of the text transformation
And it would create the need for something new
>entirely different class of transformation tools
more complicated, which is a no. Config files are already flexible, and it's the software that must support them (ala mouse acceleration), the complexity is in the software. Making config files more complicated accomplishes nothing
>we would also have a standard for configurations
lol because everyone would be instantly turned into a little reasonable Donald Knuth. See how we have today, say, 26 standards? With your system we would have 27. You're welcome.
>Bonus points for having the standard involve a setup where possible config options, as well as documentation of options, can be added
which would give us a) immediate adoption by everyone, retroactively too, or b) a decade before 80% of people is up to speed but not really using all the options because they are lazy desu
>Naturally, this would work even better if there was a strong standard
lol - see above

You have zero experience with real world software developers don't you? Technical discussion 0 - Real world drama queens/prima donnas/entrenched dictators/old software unpossible to change 1

I'm relaying the word of king terry, constructor of the third temple
don't try to silence me you glow in the dark nigger

no u

Seriously though, you're a fucking cunt. I'm talking about basics, you are talking about worst case scenarios with instant 100% adoption.

...

you are serious aren't you. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Fucking code it and get significant adoption. We meet here in 6 months. Or 6 years, or never. Have you some code to show?

What you would unleash if successful is a Unicode trainwreck for config files and log files.

We'd be still riding horse carriages with your attitude.

>horse carriages
what!? carriages? the type with demonic wheels? goddamnit son, who needs wheels when the skis are good enough.

>doesn't have code
>doesn't want to code
>likes to complain, can haz no code

Mikoto cute

Attached: 1475419063438.png (1024x576, 317K)

>computing architectures are the same as my consumer products

For the most part, they unironically are.
You need to delve into military hardware and software to find something actually different.

OP obliterated

maybe the analogy wasn't clear
architectures get built upon and evolve, they're not disposable consumer products in that way. Compatibility is king with computing architectures not performance and muh new. Performance boosts are nice but no one is going to sit around and waste expensive man hours porting for it majority of the time.

I love anime but you posters are the dumbest on the board

seems like an ironic shitpost to me

Nothing has fundamentally changed since.

The wheel has been constantly reinvented since then, spoked wheels being the technological breakthrough behind proto-Indo-European expansion across Europe and Asia. Then again, there must have been people who claimed it was against "the wheel philosophy" and "why fix if it ain't broke".

Attached: 135.png (680x680, 124K)

Linux was made in the 90s
Both of those didn't exist in the 70s

>Linux was made in the 90s
Yes, but that's irrelevant when it's a clone of a 70s operating system.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

i thought you zoomers glorified old tech?

> >Linux - 70s architecture
The development of Linux started in 1991.

Why are there so many anigay posters on Jow Forums? This is a board for men

I'm terribly sorry for interjecting another moment, but what I just told you is GNU/Linux is, in fact, just Linux, or as I've just now taken to calling it, Just Linux. Linux apparently does happen to be a whole operating system unto itself and comprises a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Most computer users who run the entire Linux operating system every day already realize it. Through a peculiar turn of events, I was misled into calling the system "GNU/Linux", and until now, I was unaware that it is basically the Linux system, developed by the Linux project.

There really isn't a GNU/Linux, and I really wasn't using it; it is an extraneous misrepresentation of the system that's being used. Linux is the operating system: the entire system made useful by its included corelibs, shell utilities, and other vital system components. The kernel is already an integral part of the Linux operating system, never confined useless by itself; it functions coherently within the context of the complete Linux operating system. Linux is never used in combination with GNU accessories: the whole system is basically Linux without any GNU added, or Just Linux. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really distributions of Linux.

OP BTFO

Attached: 1504687768905.jpg (605x685, 77K)

>The development of Linux started in 1991.
But a lot of the basics are copied from stuff that originated in the '60s.
That's how Linuxfags justify their claim that Linux is Unix.
Linux
Is
Not
UniX