On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:49:22 +0200 Tobias Ulmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> tl;dr: In my opinion, these anti Linux rants do harm to OpenBSD by > condemning everything Linux does instead of allowing us to pick out > just the good parts. Hmm. Even if there would be no antilinux rants it is just impossible,to get something from linux... remember licence differencies. > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:22:02AM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote: > > On 2011-06-22 09.24, Tobias Ulmer wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:48:59AM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote: > > >> On 2011-06-22 03.03, [email protected] wrote: > > >>>> Please continue to use Linux. > > >>>> That's ugly, useless and dangerous. > > >>> > > >>> Oops, looks like that was a "holy war" type of question. Sorry > > >>> I did not want to start that. > > >>> > > >>>> If you want Linux, use Linux. > > >>> > > >>> It's not that I want specifically Linux. I've just decided to > > >>> look for a system that cat satisfy me from the usability point > > >>> of view. I do not care if that will be Linux or *BSD or Solaris > > >>> or whatever else. The main idea was that the work with the > > >>> system should be a pleasure, not a pain :) > > >> > > >> What you should do is relearn the proper way. :-) > > >> > > > > [the rest of my rant deleted] > > > > > Oh please, Linus wrote the kernel, not Ubuntu. If you hate > > > coreutils or getopt, blame the respective groups that developed > > > them and not someone writing a kernel, a long time ago. > > > > No, I don't hate coreutils or getopt, getopt is good shit. What I > > hate is the inconsistensies, the fact that Linux isn't a homogenous > > piece of work but so obviously a product of a thousand chefs, few > > with similar taste. > > > > And my criticism extends to the kernel too, or rather begins with > > it, so it definitley applies to Linus himself and the kernel guys. > > > > > This rose tinted "OpenBSD is the greatest" shit really gets on my > > > nerves. It's all fun to bash others, but from time to time you > > > have to look at their stuff and figure out which parts they did > > > right and you could improve. > > > > Granted, my rant was, on purpose, negatively Linux-biased, but not > > in one single place - also on purpose - would you have found the > > word OpenBSD or any slant towards it, which makes me suspect you > > couldn't stand what I wrote long enough to actually read all of > > it. :-) > > Right. And I felt in the mood to take the opposite position for the > fun of it. > > > > > So I think you might have missed my point. There is a "true unix" > > heritage that needs to be cared for, THAT MAKES LIFE SIMPLER if you > > understand and take advantage of it. > > OpenBSD specifically and old BSD in general is not true to Unix. From > ksh to billions of options to find and other tools to the entire > networking framework (bolted on with additional syscalls, pseudo > devices etc), nothing of that is Unix (or even -like). > > Here is something to read: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/ > > BSD went through a similar phase as GNU: adding every feature known to > man to the original Unix commands. Have a look at lpr(1) for GNUism in > action. After some time we got a little wiser and stopped adding flags > for everything that was convenient. > > Linux, especially with the constant influx of new developers and > commercial interests, hasn't yet cooled down enough to stop messing > around with their "base" system. > > However if I got my history right, the improvements of BSD are why > people bought a Unix license and then installed BSD. It was better, > it had more features, networking, usable error messages, better > language support etc. etc. > > > Linus missed or chose to ignore that part entirely. That's fine, as > > Linux is not said to be a unix operating system, but a "unix like" > > one. > > > > The problem is, this "likeness" is not "like enough", so it really > > doesn't help the community overall but rather hinders it. This is > > something the Linux and GNU folks could have addressed in the early > > days but either chose to ignore or were ignorant about. For that > > they absolutely deserve some blame. > > Are you ready to test my patch where I'm going to remove -exec from > find(1) so you can have your real Unix back? And -r from grep? And... > > Bullshit, you use BSD because just like Linux, it added lots of handy > features while keeping it simple. Linux may overdo it from your and my > point of view, but so does OpenBSD from the POV of some old unix guys. > > > > > Now, the OP:s questions are certainly addressable by choosing a > > shell he is used to, and perhaps by a set of aliases and/or scripts > > to tune the "user experience" into something familiar for him. > > The getopt(3) function is inconsistent amongst operating systems and > could use some polish in my opinion. Maybe there are technical reasons > why this feature can't be implemented, but this discussion has > certainly extinguished my curiosity about it. > > Backwards threads like this one prevent people from trying to improve > things, which is the real damage done. > > Once they get "discussed" in this manner on misc@, it's difficult to > get even very sensible patches committed. Some developers may have > formed a strong "anti" stance and it takes years to convince them. > > > > > My problem with that, and the reason for the recommendation I made > > before digressing into rant mode, is that that practice will get him > > into trouble in the long run, as he encounters other flavors of > > unix, linux, Solaris, *BSD and whatever else might lie in his path > > in the future. So my suggestion, while tongue in cheek, was made in > > all seriousness and is in my opinion still a very valid one. > > I'm not specifically interested in the thread starters problem, it's > reasonable to suggest more portable approaches. What got me was the > (imo) baseless anti Linux (and Linus) sentiment. > > I love good rants, but every now and then... Anyway, here's my novel, > now I have work to do. > > > > > (Ok, this will be my last novel in this thread, I promise... I just > > seem genetically unable to say things in just a few words.) > > > > > > Regards, > > /Benny > > > > -- > > internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must > > Benny Lvfgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, > > / fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not > > counted." / email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
