Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 14:55 UTC
General Unix 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).
Thread beginning with comment 519628
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Sun 27th May 2012 19:12 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

I use Linux framebuffer to draw graphical stuff on my screen. With it I can run at least Links2 with graphics, mplayer, Netsurf and DOSBox. I like it because it has made me able to quit X which took about 65% of my RAM on normal use. (I have 64MB of RAM)

Yes, but do you have hardware acceleration and Gnome or KDE with all their bundled apps? "I have graphics without X" is different from "I managed to have some graphics without X, as long as I don't use Gnome or KDE or need hardware acceleration". From what i hear around, xorg is a neccessary evil.

As regards the dudes who try to convince people the Unix filesystem as it is is a good thing, I guess if all you used in your life are bicycles with the steering behind you instead of in front of you, you will eventually convince yourself and other people it's better than a normal bike. Assigning "/" to the hardrrive the OS is installed in and make everything else appear as a subfolder is silly. Mounting a drive to a folder should be an option, not a requirement in order to use your drives. Gnome and KDE know this and are trying to hide the issue, but due to dudes considering the Unix filesystem a good thing, the still have some button that exposes the nastyness.

Edited 2012-05-27 19:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 02:50 in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Assigning "/" to the hardrrive the OS is installed in and make everything else appear as a subfolder is silly. Mounting a drive to a folder should be an option, not a requirement in order to use your drives.


The UNIX filesystem was designed to be network agnostic. You're not arguing anything profound: you're just arguing for one set of conventions over another which doesn't really change anything.

The "average" user doesn't even care how drives are represented. All they want is a window that they can open for the drive, which does not matter if it uses the UNIX / convention, or the DOS drive letter convention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by tidux on Mon 28th May 2012 14:29 in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Assigning "/" to the hardrrive the OS is installed in and make everything else appear as a subfolder is silly

Wow, you really don't understand the Unix filesystem. The drive mounted as / is specified in /etc/fstab, and the physical drive files are located in /dev/. Some people mount /usr separately, some mount /var separately, and a lot of people using *nix at home mount /home separately. The beauty of the Unix filesystem is that nobody freaking cares what your partition scheme is unless you're running out of room. Mounting remote filesystems is completely transparent once they're mounted. Even NT does this internally; it only keeps drive letters as links because people are retarded and incapable of change.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Alfman on Mon 28th May 2012 18:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tidux,

"Wow, you really don't understand the Unix filesystem."

I don't think that the OP's opinion demonstrates any lack of understanding. For some *nix filesystems can seem cumbersome and it's a valid opinion.

For me, linux mounting is a nice abstraction, but sometimes I'm put off by the lack of overlays in the mainline kernel. I shouldn't have to have to store all /home/ directories on one disk for example. Overlooking several caveats, we can mimic overlays manually using symlinks, but linux's mount capabilities are occasionally inadequate.

A bigger problem for me is the standard linux directory hierarchy. I prefer an application centric hierarchy rather than one where everything is dumped together in the big /usr/bin soup pot.

Reply Parent Score: 2