Page 3 of 3

Re: What do you think of Unix Like systems?

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:13 pm
by fred02
mrugiero wrote:This is already the off topic forum, anyway :P
Off-topic of off-topic, yay! :mrgreen:
EmuandCo wrote:Wont halp at all. This was about to happen if someone ask this in a ROS forum. I wont split just to make room for new off topic stuff.
You are right, it is bound to die sooner or later anyway.

Re: What do you think of Unix Like systems?

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:12 pm
by alexei
Shouldn't we consider MS Windows to be a Unix-like system? :)
They have so many common concepts: file, file system, driver, how applications interact with OS, etc.
Of course, there is a big difference between WIn32 API and POSIX, but they still similar enough for "portability" wrappers to exist. I would say, Unix and Windows have more similarities than differences on the conceptual level. They are based on the very same ideas, just implement them differently.
What I think about Unix-like systems (including Windows :) ) is that they are over-integrated, inherently unsafe, and poorly designed. There worst things are: integration of the providers of application execution environment into the OS, networking at the OS level, and lack of strictly layered design.
If I wasn't clear enough, here is an example: linking applications to OS components is very wrong. For safety reasons OS memory space should not be even visible to applications, and of course, applications and OS should not both use same "libraries", same address space, etc.
BTW, using libraries for OS construction is rather questionable idea, as in general it contradicts the concept of the layered design (inner layer provides services to upper layer, in each layer there is no freedom of using whatever you want, only what is already provided by inner layer).
Unix-like systems (including Windows) were born in a peaceful computer world without viruses and cyber-crime. Despite of "heroic" efforts they actually fail to provide adequate security and stability.

Re: What do you think of Unix Like systems?

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:23 am
by Aeneas
Unixoids have a time-tested design that works very well.

"Time-tested" partly means "archaic", sure - full of little inconsistencies that have crept in and that "are there for historic reasons", such as the priority number in nice and renice that work differently, or whether the arguments to tar have a slash or not, or just what options you have to ps, or just what your priniting commands are...

On the other hand, "that works well enough". It worked so well that it killed Plan 9.

That said, I'd rather expect Windows to die than Unix. Why? Because the Unixoids are incredibly modular - and can suit all kinds of needs. Windows cannot. Windows lives from the office world in the world's companies. That tradition "kept its usage up". But it relies that nothing better will ever be invented for office work... a presumption I do not shar.

Yes, for an end user, Unix' modularity may appear a mess, but if proper "shielding" is undertaken, the user does not notice this. ("Well done": Android. You tap - you have Wireless. "Not that well done": NetBSD, at least the way I know it - fiddling with wpa_supplicant-nonsense, which DOES work, but is ... plain weird for an end-user.)