Is Unix worth saving?

Ironic, as pipes are the most glaring example of Unix retardation.

Unix is proprietary malware.

Attached: 1550211592169.png (450x399, 358K)

No, fuck C and fuck Eunuchs

unix is dead, retard. All we have are unix like system and a few certified unix (which are unix only in name too). Also, unix philosophy is shit and i'm glad it's dying, too bad retards like suckless and cat-v exists.

No, but it’s worth improving. Unix, in many common implementations has a monolithic kernel. This flies in the face of its philosophy, which is about keeping everything small, modular, and doing roughly one thing on its own, combining or pipelining with other things to create a bigger whole.
A truer realization of the ideals of Unix would be a microkernel system

but linux is

What does Linux do that is Unix-like?

Men of culture.

and windows is unix-like? wow

I did not say that. Answer the question.

Hardware improvements and the move to personal computing have made much of the unix system overly complicated or redundant (e.g. users and file permissions, file system and application structure for binaries and libraries). And at some point it's probably worth biting the bullet and starting over from scratch rather than just continuing to stack layers over layers of architecture and emulation like we've been doing for 40 years

I imagine something like urbit will eventually show up and gradually find success. New interface technologies like AR/VR and BCI are an opportunity to develop new operating systems from scratch

nope. Linux is a kernel. GNU is the unix clone, android hardly has anything to do with unix. I don't even think it has some kind of coreutils
What

GNU/Linux is basically a clone of Unix, complete with all the usual utilities and POSIX functionality.
The question is, how isn’t it Unix?
>inb4 no direct tie to AT&T, doesn’t have insert meme cert here

Users and permissions are still important though. Not having any kind of access restrictions = pwned.
I would agree that there’s probably a better way to do it though than users and groups and ACLs, rwx and such. Maybe something more like capability-based security would be a wiser choice.

I'm saying that non-unices are being btfo'd by unices-likes, and macroshaft itself produced xenix which is eunuchs-like, so its kinda of retarded to say that youneex was a mistake while posting richard gates pic

it's already saved. by standards. it's a standard creep now.

The Linux operating system is a complete operating system. Get on your knees and say "Thank you Linus." Do it. Now!

it's funny that linus himself never intended his shit to be an operating system

Based.

The UNIX philosophy has proven itself to be time-tested, battle-tested bulletproof philosophy. It will never go away, and the UNIX-like systems (*BSD) and UNIX clones (Linux, Minix) are the perfect example of that.
Even operating systems that claim to have a "modern" design rely on the UNIX philosophy (like BeOS).
Just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.

>object oriented, originally agile but frozen by standards before proper cleanup redesign
meh

I asked about Linux, not about GNU.

It's ironic of you to basically claim "winfags btfo" while using the same argumenta ad populum winfags use.
By the very metric you're using, Windows is the greatest OS of all time.

What is /usr/ for?

The Unix Haters Handbook has a lot of shit that's really irrelevant today (it's kinda impressive how much GNU saved Unix as an ideal too, a ton of issues about the classic Unix tools like arbitrary line length limits and the lot don't apply to systems with the GNU userland) and has a lot of people who come from various failed operating systems ragging on Unix and Unix-likes...

...but there's still a fair bit that holds true today.
It's an interesting read, at the very least.

Some of it wasn’t even relevant at the time of its release. As I recall (from seeing people pull quotes from it), there was a passage about “shell-script databases”, yet SQL came out before the book. Same with some issue about time. There was NTP or some revision of it way before it’s release.

>pipes are the most glaring example of Unix retardation
what did he mean by this?

who's the girl and how do I make her my wife?

no
neither this

/thread

but seriously, like, it's literally written by a bunch of people who are pissed that their shit failed, people who, instead of trying to actually bring a solution to market that could compete (as you can see, all of these OSes ran on fantastically expensive hardware, much more expensive than just getting a $5k Sun, and then a little later on, an ordinary $1k x86 PC)

there's a little blurb of Emacs dying repeatedly on said Sun, which turned out to be a result of him not having enough memory and a memory leak (something he was relatively new to: the Lisp Machine he used before was slow, but it did garbage collection)

here's the copy I was reading
web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

I don't remember seeing that bit on databases.
I think I do remember reading the bit on time though.

Attached: jej.png (692x359, 100K)

there are still unix certified systems iirc, wouldn't that mean that there still is licensed unix out there being actively maintained? hell, even osx is one of them.

Unix certifications are literal scams, even Linux (a UNIX clone, not an actual UNIX by any means) can be certified as a UNIX system.

>GNU saved Unix as an ideal
End this bullshit revisionism. GNU's Not Unix, and that was not only to avoid oatent trolls. They never even bothered following the so-called "Unix philosophy" (as you yourself said), not to mention rms didn't even want to clone Unix in the first place. He made GNU functionally similar to it because it was popular, so that people would be able to switch more easily.
The main goal is, and has always been, spreading free software and eventually eradicating proprietary software, making an OS similar to Unix was but a means to this end, unlike what cat-v and BSDfags believe.
Saying that "GNU saved Unix" is like saying that Wine saved Windows.
Hell, rms even coined the term POSIX precisely to avoid that all operating systems conforming to that standard be referred to as simply "Unix".

Unix no, its proprietary software. and outdated.
but unix clones like linux and bsd. yes

It forces you to serialize and re-parse all the shit you send in pipes for no reason, where on Lisp-based OSes such as Genera you could reuse that structured data directly.
Pipes are retarded and a workaround to justify the "Unix philosophy", which is superficially attractive because it makes every single part LOOK simpler, but complicates the whole, which is what matters.

BSD is not a UNIX clone. It's a UNIX descendant, it just can't be called a Unix for legal reasons.

SQL violates the Unix philosophy.

it already lost that. Any off the shelf pc has tons of software bloat and zero application cohesion.

I keep seeing people say things like this, and I don't see anyone actually doing object passing systems.
...well, Powershell does, and it's clunky as balls, but that's not a great example.

in addition, when you can blast data through a pipe at several GB/s, the overhead stops mattering so much -- the overhead was considered acceptable in the fucking 80s, let alone now that throughput has increased so much as to make it a non-issue

>They never even bothered following the so-called "Unix philosophy" (as you yourself said),
did you have this post prepared for someone else, or did you just read what you wanted to, damn what was written

RMS doesn't really care about Unix, sure, but as a result of GNU, he's directly responsible for spreading the interfaces and mechanics that originated in the Unix tradition.