Loontards often state that Loonix is so awesome because it inherited so much from UNIX.
On the other side, have you ever wondered where do all those stupid kids get their inspiration?
Great internet refrigirator will help us this time.
Let me introduce you Irrelevance 1985
It just blows my mind how almost nothing (literally) changed in the looniverse:
Chasing DOS
OS for computer elite
people just don’t know about it
scales to mainframes, ergo it’s an excellent choise for microcomputers (one of the main points, repeated several times)
runs “on 50-100 different kinds of processors, it’s very important”
7:35 “One of the criticism of UNIX has been that is’s unreliable“ (this feature was inherited without modifications, indeed)
EverybodyUsesUnix (in AT&T phones)
Over and over failing to explain why should anyone care about this
“Still some work in graphics area” (but CLI is already awesome)
It’s all about lack of applications people want
Q: Why are there so many versions of UNIX and how do they differ?
A: They are similar – names are pretty much all that differs.
And don’t miss conclusion on 21:54
“UNIX is a user hostile OS, dramatically short on software”
Comments
And by the way. Windows is more UNIX than Linux.
Windows POSIX subsystem (currently “Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications”) was certified POSIX compliant as stated here: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/posix/finalreg4.htm
I’m not aware of ANY linux distribution, certified to be POSIX compliant
Personally, I wouldn’t call UNIX a failure. Mac OS X is a significant player in the hi-end segment of home computers. Plus it’s not hostile and has lots of usable software.
Sure, Mac OS X doesn’t use the X windows system, but early versions of Solaris didn’t either. Not using the X windows system doesn’t make something non-UNIX. Sure, Mac OS X is proprietary as hell with closed APIs, but SGI IRIX was too. Being proprietary as hell with closed APIs doesn’t make something non-UNIX.
Average Linux User: “Does this mean that those proprietary companies made a usable version of UNIX before open source? This is not how it should be! This is not what our comrades from the F$F party told us! Open source is supposed to deliver earlier an better software than those capitalist proprietary companies. Right?” (at this point, the linux user either tries to convince himself linux is as good as Mac OS X, in the same way the East Germans tried to convince themselves their wartburgs were as good as west germany’s VW beetles, or tries to cross Stallman’s Wall of Freetardness and escape to Mac OS X)
Nice to see Gary Kildall and Bill Joy, however. I think the strap-line for this wonderful (and it is wonderful) video says it all:
“AT&T’s computer operating system is threatening to take over IBM’s MS-DOS dominance.”
Now, and ignoring the blatant false attributions to both operating systems, why would I care unless I was AT&T or IBM?
There’s another lovely quote from Sobell, c. 6:30, where he says “exactly. [The cryptic Unix shell interface] also provided the environment for the developers to build Unix.”
So, it’s useless in and of itself, but it allows for recursive uselessness. There’s a reason GNU is called GNU, obviously.
You must be signed in to leave comments.