UNIX Philosophy

Its a good set of guidelines as long as you know when to steer away from them.

it has some cringy zen koan shit that got added after, but the core idea tiny programs that do more than the sum of their parts was ahead of its time. The loss of this idea is why everything is a web browser now.

However the complexity of what users wanted computers to do demanded that eventually some do-it-all type of program was going to win.

Lower IQ users don't think in terms of composition. I don't mean to insult them, I just mean a particular combination of tools found in /bin may be an obvious solution to someone who gets it, but it's painful "thinking" to a normal user. They just their email and browsing to be in the same place.

If this pattern was still a think, loading a website would be something like

curl url < cookies > cookies | videothing | mousething | audiothing | graphicswidget

it's very clear from the example code in The C Programming Language that Ritchie had no idea what he was doing.

>gnu tards want Unix philosophy
>gnu stands for gnus not unix
Pick one

Unix philosophy is EXCELLENT, however, Unix the operating system and many of its clones are not designed in a way that makes sense within this guiding philosophy. You say you want little programs that each do one thing and come together to make a bigger whole. That's cool. That's comfy.
However, if that's the goal, why is the kernel one giant several-million-line fuckoff binary? To me, the truest realization of the Unix philosophy would be a system with a microkernel, but sadly trends and developments over the years did not result in such systems becoming dominant. Maybe SeL4/Genode, Redox, or Google Fuchsia will have more success.
I just want a microkernel *nix OS usable as a daily driver, damn it!

Attached: obligatory-frog.jpg (474x474, 29K)

"not unix" was for legal reasons. It doesn't mean "not inspired or feature-compatible with unix or related in any way". It means "we didn't take any code from AT&T".

I think it's good. It suggests to keep things minimal and reusable.

But the fact remains that since it's inception in 1983 GNU has stood in opposition to the UNIX philosophy.

In what way? Outside of Stallman being a lispfag in his personal life, there's not much about GNU that's opposed to Unix in a technical sense. I mean if that were the case, they would have written a lisp clone, or a multics clone, or a VMS clone. But they didn't. They made a clone of Unix.
Wasted trips desu

I can tell you have never really used any software written by the GNU project. Compare the clones that GNU wrote to the originals, or even the clones written by Berkeley in the 90s, and get back to me, kid.

German develops l4 and L4 micro kernel.
German Universities build on it and do their own versions and release it under 2-clause BSD.

British University copies their work and adds code and releases it under GPL v2.

Attached: gott_strafe_poster.jpg (237x264, 23K)

It's funny that BSDick Suckers will talk about how their license is so free because it allows people to relicense the software, but as soon as someone relicenses BSD software with the GPL you throw a fit.

It’s dated. It made sense when computers did less, but then you end up with so many codependent programs to do what a modern program does no one really applies it any more.

read this to get good and bad sides
>jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

>as long as you know when to steer away from them
Which is the vast majority of time.

I guess it's because copy-left and permissive are to competing "sects" of open source licenses. And copy-left constantly give us shit.

No, it's because BSDick Suckers are hypocrites.

>And copy-left constantly give us shit.
Point proven here:
>BSDick Suckers
GPL is garbage and so are all you GPL tards. Filthy commies.

imagine using anything GNU

Attached: 1559330056604.png (326x301, 36K)

What is Mach

It's the form AI take once they're done cleaning up the mess you call a platform.

>GPL is garbage and so are all you GPL tards. Filthy commies.
How much does Apple pay you, shill?

>BSDick Suckers are hypocrites

>Muh. BSD is bad because people steal your code and re-license it, without giving anything back.
>Does the very same thing they say is bad and immoral by themselves enjoying the fruits of BSD and re-licensing it under GPL and not giving back to the BSD project.
Hypocrites are you

>Does the very same thing they say is bad and immoral by themselves enjoying the fruits of BSD and re-licensing it under GPL and not giving back to the BSD project.
We don't think it is immoral to relicense software. We think it is immoral for software to be non-GPL.

>We think it is immoral for software to be non-GPL.
Imagine being this delusional.

Attached: 1550152741106.gif (379x440, 140K)

Imagine hating freedom.

@71303610
How did you deduce that I "hate freedom" from this post ?

The GPL is the only license that guarantees true freedom for all.

The example where the traditional UNIX philosophy might be disadvantageous is understandable. I think that the details could be handled in such a way, but automatically by the browser with little direct user involvement. The functionality does not have to be built-in - outside programs (e.g. core utilities) could be called by the browser. In this scenario, the browser would simply orchestrate other programs to accomplish things.

@71303630
>GPL is the only license that guarantees true freedom
Link to a formal proof? Or are you just talking out of your ass here?

Hi, Reddit.

@71303668
I'm just going to assume you don't have an actual reply.

Daily reminder that UNIX is deprecated proprietary malware, and the primary catalyst for the free as in freedom software movement.

Attached: 1548233499961.png (800x480, 26K)

The real essence is that programs should be reusable components. Simple is nice, but there's no need to be autistic about it.

I've embraced all the fat-ass GNU extensions. I want something useful, rather than something pure.
Stallman copied Unix due to its popularity, rather than ideological reasons. As much of an idealist as he is, he's still plenty pragmatic about things.

Compare the clones that GNU wrote to the originals
Yes. The GNU stuff is faster, doesn't segfault on corner-cases, and doesn't truncate long lines. It has real documentation and less cryptic error messages.
It is as a rule, nicer.

Dunno about the state of the BSD tools back in the day, but they're okay now.

It's an empty slogan.

Don't you think if Linux was BSD that it would have done just as well?
Even if some company made their proprietary Linux kernel, it would still cost companies money, whilst a BSD Linux would be free to run on all those millions of servers in data centers all over the world.

kek he's running like the whole whale is going to explode

It's a good set of ideas, but as a purity test it's really really dumb.
If you want to adhere to the UNIX philosophy as guidance as you code, be my guest. If you use the UNIX philosophy as a set of irrefutable commandments handed down from on high that must be followed by all projects, you're an idiot. And if you use the UNIX philosophy as a tool to bludgeon projects you dislike, you're dumb and an asshole.

You we're the mistake.
Sincerely, you father and mother.

MIT/BSD are freer in a way that gpl will never be, that's true freedom not that commie GPL bullshit

A lot of Linux's success comes from the fact that companies spent money on it and everyone benefited because the source was released. This was the GPL working as intended.
In contrast, there are existing BSD systems that probably have a bunch of under-the-hood changes that will never get released upstream.
That's not to say that no one would release changes upstream, but the outright obligation certainly sped things along quite a bit and opened things up.

>probably

There's a difference between Stallman's brand of idiocy (there's no real reason for him to not be fond of the various *BSDs other than sheer autism, they are definitely capital-F Free) and the actual case that you're literally just letting people take your shit and not expect anything in return under BSD.

The unix philosophy says: make a proprietary operating system and sue the shit out of free software projects. Fuck unix and fuck onions shilling it's philosophy. Back to the reddit "unixporn".
Unix is nothing but a cool word used by wannabes to sound nerdy.
keep it crippled
everything is onions
Pic related, a unix user.

Attached: 1559752025434.gif (307x343, 22K)

>Pic related, a unix user.
Why is he jumping back and forth?

when you're unix and want to suck dick but torvalds already claimed everydick for himself

That's the face of a Linux user when he sees a screenshot of rice he likes that has some anime girls in the screenshot.

>It's more free because we can make it proprietary!
I can't believe you shills let closed source companies feed you this FUD.

Let's say you have some GPL code as the foundation of your project. You add 90% of your own code (the GPL code being only 10%). All your code has now got to be GPL as well now.

This is why it's called 'viral licensing'.

That's a consequence of true freedom

Even if retarded, it's still a consistent worldview, absolute freedom logically also implies freedom to be a cuckold.

>BSD virgin chooses cuck license because allowing people to arbitrarily relicense your code is "more free"
>bitches when someone does exactly that
Hypocrisy.

>GNU/Chad relicenses BSD code under GPL to add modifications because he doesn't want his code to be used in proprietary software in the future
>knows his actions are moral since they are clearly allowed by the BSD license
>doesn't bitch and moan when people relicense his code in ways he doesn't like because they simply can't
Not hypocrisy.

Name one instance of a dev of a permissive license bitching and moaning about re-licensing. You will not find it. You will find complaints when GPL tars violate the extremely permissive license. How big of a douche bag do you have to be to be able to violate a 2-clause BSD.

No it is not. The cuckolds have already stated their goal of eradicating all non-cuckolds. So it's a hypocritical worldview at best, and at worst, plain wrong.

I see web sites that violate MIT and 2/3 clause BSD all the time. The trend among javascript developers is to ignore copyright altogether it seems.

The BSD license isn't more consistent, it's just simpler to explain. GPL is consistent on a different axis, trying to ensure a different kind of freedom.

Probably because JS licensing violations are literally impossible to enforce. We'd need to create an AI specifically for that purpose, and it'd suck at it until it decided that there were greater software related problems to fix, at which point it's not even actually tracking down violations of software "licenses" in relation to JavaScript source, it'd just be doing that every so often to keep its programmers happy.

Literally, the math fucks over the idea of ever enforcing this shit on that scale.

>Name one instance of a dev of a permissive license bitching and moaning about re-licensing.
Uh... the people in this very thread? Granted, they may not be developers but that's just semantics.
>You will find complaints when GPL tars violate the extremely permissive license.
How is that relevant? Is this supposed to be a weak attempt at guilt by association?

>cuckold
False analogy.

Permissive:
I create a recipe.
It's free. Under license 1.
You can modify the recipe, add your own ingredients.
Your version with all your additions can be proprietary or free - as long as you add the license 1 for the portion of your recipe that is under license 1. So the original recipe remains under license 1.

Copyleft:
I create a recipe.
It's gratis, but not free (it's restricted under license 2).
You can modify the recipe, add your own ingredients.
Your version with all your additions must be must be under license 2 as well.

Proprietary:
I create a recipe.
It can be gratis or cost money. It is restricted under license 3.
You cannot modify the recipe or add your own ingredients.

This whole thread illustrates why there will be no viable Windows alternative

osnews.com/story/18528/linux-driver-copyright-violation/

Copyleft:
You may not make money of your own version of the recipe with all your own ingredients added. It must all be under license 2.

bruh. grep, cat, and sed are the fuckin' shit

It's pretty okay in a simple shell scripting context, and entirely inadequate for the kinds of software that people actually use computers for (web browsers, CAD software, etc.).

>Do one thing and do it well
>Said the nigger that can't spell

Yeah, I was thinking about that. How would you break up a browser into modules/programs that all communicate with each-other, and wouldn't it affect performance?

1. Make refer to a snap-in widget that is more or less Notepad, but configurable to work with other text-processing applications. Use MIME types extensively.
2. Remember how we used MIME types for WYSIWYG style editing to augment behavior earlier? Well guess what? It turns out s are already able to be encoded in multipart formats! In fact, this is how file uploading literally works! So extend that a bit further, and make applications that can convert between all the various multipart formats. If you can't make an application that can embed any type of document in any other, then you need to GTFO and stop pretending you understand how to make flexible systems.
3. Create a tunneling service. Not an HTTP proxy deferral engine, but an actual tunneling service. If it doesn't have HTTP tunneling support, then why did you even bother making it? In any case, at the browser level, you'll obviously have better options for how your data is routed throughout the internet and it won't be a question of "which adblocker to use" but, "What OSI layer should I block this new advertising service at?"
4. Your browser is just a frontend to the protocols backend that maps URIs to display spaces. Since it's all modular and portable, this means that Steam, Opera, Thunderbird, etc., can all use the same (configurable) HTML rendering engine, and configure it purely for the security necessary to maintain the functionality of the application's interface.
5. Step restricted. Please implement other layers before requesting advanced engineering knowledge.

By giving up rights to exclusivity under GPL you at the same time become an owner of everything written under it, which means you gain much more than you ever could under other licenses. That's why it's a thinking man's choice, for he knows that the more widespread it becomes, the more he owns.

He only owns the code he wrote. For instance Linux kernel cannot be converted to GPL v3 if say Linus does not want to convert the code he wrote. Everyone would have to agree to convert.

>use program
>want to use my own pager and/or editor
>I can do it because muh unix philosphy
it's unironically amazing when programs properly do it

It make sense for some things but not other things. Regardless, it would be nice if people wouldn't bloat their shit so much.

An ancient and unoptimized microkernel that is often used by monolithfags as “proof” that microkernels “don’t work” and are “too slow”

Good.

its like the bible, so old for modern standards

fucking zoomers are not qualified to talk about serious matters. only boomers could

at that time, you fucking degenerates, the world of smart people was amazed by discoveries of molecular biology, the structure of DNA, transcription, etc. and cell biology used to be a trendy topic, like deep learning today

so, smart people, way smarter than you fucks, realized that vastly complex systems, like a cell, used to be build by mother nature out of simple, uniform components (unlilke node_modules you fucking degenerates) so, they made this principle into the core of philosophy

simple programs (doing one thing but doing it well) which communicate via uniform text streams is the UNIX philosophy which is still sound. streams allow composition

so, fuck off, go back to your node_modules and do not touch our sacred texts you fucking idiots

Couple of strawmen in here.

UNIX represents the commercial like HP-UX for example and in no way represents the Unix Philosophy.

Linux is a Unix inspired implementation.
It's not Unix derived like Mac for example.

Being a inspirated implementation is actually more beneficial because it was more flexible since it was younger so it was allowed to choose the best concepts of what was desired from the great Unixes and it discarded what concepts it didn't like.

The same is to be said about GNU.

Another strawman you see is the common "GNU is not Unix" and that is true it isn't derived from Unix but that doesn't mean it can't share some of the same philosophical goals.

Unix derived systems themselves don't inherently follow "Unix philosophy" priciples either.
It is the developer who implements these principles themselves.
The software license(when speaking of copyleft/permissive) in no way affects "Unix philosophy".

Also it would be very amateur to assume GNU is not unix to not understand the reference to UNIX(R) and it's hold on the computer as interputed by stallman himself.

Before personal computers even had a standard and were accessible or even graphics systems.

Later the IBM PC thankfully helped but this was a double edged sword because of their monopolization just like former UNIX hardware.
Xenix, Multics, HPUX, AIX, UNIX System 5.

You could argue most if not all of them ignore the Unix Philosophy principles despite being the originators of Unix itself.

Ken Thompson goes into great detail about his reasoning to create a new OS in the first place with such a nessescity and desire he had to hide it from AT&T themselves while he used it for work and personal time.

He underlines these principles directly as his reasoning without any nuance and is inspiration for a majority of the core concepts themselves.

>simple programs (doing one thing but doing it well) which communicate via uniform text streams is the UNIX philosophy which is still sound
it hasn't been sound since the 90s grandpa

Majority of CLI programs follow this concept.

Jow Forumscommandline
Jow Forumscli
Someone just posted a backup program that is just bash to leverage rsync and gzip.

Modular and it does one thing well.
Doesn't try and rewrite compression algos or moving data.

Very small line of code so anyone can swap out their own tools like xz instead of gzip for example.

>CLI programs
who cares about CLI programs anymore?

>automatically by the browser
Already violated unix philosophy

Idk why I said CLI because CLI and TUI is Jow Forumscommandline

I was thinking of Jow Forumstinycode/ which is great to look for inspiration and learning concepts.

>Jow Forumscommandline
>Jow Forumstinycode/
What the fuck is this syntax? Is this some nu-syntax to Jow Forumseplace text?

I'm sorry I don't visit reddit I don't know what you're talking about

UNIX is a proprietary OS, UNIX "philosophy" is subjective imaginary shit that doesn't exist that hipsters use as a way to bash windows.

Linux doesn't need it.

THE DENNIS RITCHIE SHOULD FEAR THE KENNETH THOMPSON

Attached: I WANT THIS TO BE THE LAST THING I SEE BEFORE I ENTER VALHALLA.jpg (576x768, 119K)

It's to imply a sub reddit without being called a plebtard

It's "Unix philosophy" not UNIX philosophy.
They are known to conflict in principles.

Based.

no, it doesn’t. please don’t waste digits again

unix does not equal suckless