On 30 May 2010, at 18:32, Marvin Vek wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 01:22:01PM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:01:11PM +0200, Marvin Vek wrote:
Iirc: you're not using that ugly, bloated, badly implemented Linux
or
BSD then, right? Cause that would be weird!
Loving good tools and implementations is one thing, coping with
problems
or improving situations to write decent alternatives is another.
Fanboyism and joining mailinglists just to say what they use is
shit and
you've got it all better is imho uncalled for.
I could be wrong, but, isn't that the whole point of this list?
Thanks Kris. I was giving myself time to settle down before replying
to Marvin, but it's not happening.
Not afaik. Why is there software beeing developed for Linux? Why
aren't
we all on Plan9 and forget about that hideous OS? Again, if i
understand
it correctly, the idea is to learn from Plan9, implement it's idea's
cause they're good, and do have decent alternatives. The fanboyism is
getting a bit on my nerves.
Why is there software being developed for any BSD either? I have a
FreeBSD box, I wonder what the commands are.
Grep is... Gnu grep! Gnu grep is an abomination! I used it on a big
file last November when I was still using Linux. I noticed it took a
seemingly unreasonable time, decided to try Plan 9's grep. I am not
kidding in the least when I say it was FOUR HUNDRED TIMES faster. To
be fair to Gnu in general it's just grep, Gnu sed was nearly 200 times
faster than grep at the same task, but that bug's only been open for 5
years. What grep does your BSD use?
diffutils - no horror stories I know of, but it's the same one linux
uses.
gcc... do I even need to begin? You want to do anything remotely
interesting and it can't generate the code correctly with any set of
options!
What about the kernels? NetBSD - XML parser in the kernel! At least
the Linux kernel maintainers keep some of the crap out. FreeBSD... not
really heard much positive about it, and Stealth used to say it was
just "trying to be Linux" anyway. OpenBSD's hardware support seems to
be around the level of Plan 9's, but at least it's got gcc, eh?
Looking around for something to replace Linux at the end of last year
I seriously got a "why bother" feeling about all the BSDs.
A little careful listening & my feeling became more than just "why
bother". "Cat went to _Berkley_ [not Gnu] and came back waving flags."
It's Berkley that took a good unix and started gluing cruft to it, and
if Gnu has attracted more hackers to glue rubbish onto their stuff, so
what? The attitude is still there, certainly in FreeBSD and NetBSD, so
what reason is there to believe they won't mess up any future features
they take from Plan 9? From what I hear they already have screwed up
union mounts. Union mounts are crucial to Plan 9's design!
I'm reminded of Gnome, which takes a few principles from Apple and
utterly misapplies them, with a result I found far less usable than
Windows 98.
Ugh, I hate typing all this negative stuff but why, when anyone
proposes something really worthwhile, does someone always have to
scream "fanboy"? Or to put it another way, who's the stupid fanboy,
the one who wants the original research, or the one who wants the
messed up OS with a brain-damaged imitation of the research glued on?
For the sake of drivers we're stuck with messed-up kernels, but what's
keeping _almost_ _everyone_ using the rest of the crud? If I myself
haven't produced any better solutions yet, it's because I've only just
begun. I have a lot to learn, and a lot of years to regret wasting
time on rubbish that's only pretending to be clever. That rubbish
wasn't BSD, but like I said, I've no reason to believe the BSDs are
seriously better.
--
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis
rc-httpd: http://eekee.is-a-geek.org/rc-httpd/
