James Hague: "But all the little bits of complexity, all those cases where indecision caused one option that probably wasn't even needed in the first place to be replaced by two options, all those bad choices that were never remedied for fear of someone somewhere having to change a line of code... They slowly accreted until it all got out of control, and we got comfortable with systems that were impossible to understand."
Counterpoint by John Cook: "Some of the growth in complexity is understandable. It's a lot easier to maintain an orthogonal design when your software isn't being used. Software that gets used becomes less orthogonal and develops diagonal shortcuts." If there's ever been a system in
dire need of a complete redesign, it's UNIX and its derivatives. A mess doesn't even begin to describe it (for those already frantically reaching for the comment button, note that this applies to other systems as well).
Member since:
2005-07-06
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was here to provide a CIS lecture. How about you make it your responsibility to educate yourself and then we can have an informed debate on both sides?
From the context of your post I'm guessing you're complaining about the directory structure. That wasn't what the original discussion was about. Whether "everything is a directory" with volumes mounted under / makes sense and whether the names and structure of those directories makes sense are two different things.
I'm actually inclined to agree that the current hierarchy and naming scheme in most *nixes are a complete mess.
So do I. Volumes on the Amiga were no more intuitive than everything-is-a-directory on UNIX. Why is LIB: or C: any more easy to understand than /usr/lib or /bin?
Edited 2012-05-27 12:44 UTC