Comments by "guyonearth" (@guyonearth) on "ATu0026T Archives: The UNIX Operating System" video.

  1. In the 70's people squinted at tiny text on green monochrome CRTs while entering arcane commands. Today people squint at their tiny cellphone screens while watching people eat Tide pods on YouTube. We've come so far.
    16
  2. Yes, seriously. MacOS has nothing to do with traditional Unix. They grabbed FreeBSD because it was a working system they could use, they had nothing else. FreeBSD was purged of AT&T code decades ago, and therefore has nothing to do with the AT&T Unix discussed in this video. Linux is not Unix, never has been, it's a clone of Minix (originally), doesn't share a line of code, never did, dufus. Android forked from Linux 10 years ago, it's completely different thing now. You should really learn what you're talking about before shooting off your mouth. I was talking about COMMERCIAL Unix, which has mostly disappeared as an enterprise operating system, and was never relevant on the desktop. Tell me who you know is running a commercial Unix license?
    13
  3. So, another expert speaks. It amazes how little history some of you actually know about this system you claim to love. "UNIX was the first OS to have multitasking and multiuser"...This is simply not true. Multitasking was implemented in DEC Monitor, MULTICS, and OS/360 MFT years before Unix existed, and other systems as well. It was not a new concept in Unix. Multi-user was also developed years earlier, in systems like TOPS-10, for example. Unix did NOT create the concept of multi-user systems. Your other statements are highly debatable. I believe it is incorrect to say Unix gave birth to C, rather, they were parallel developments that synergized each other. The first Unix implementations were in assembly language, C was developed later. In fact, Unix was not rewritten in C until 1972. I'd suggest doing a little research before sounding off and looking foolish.
    11
  4. I think you've got it backwards. Windows is on a billion computers. Unix as a commercial product has evaporated into nothingness.
    10
  5. venkatesh nair You're a looney. Windows existed long before Linux.
    6
  6. I'm not forgetting anything. There is no ATT code in FreeBSD. There is no Unix code in Linux. Linux is not Unix. "GNU is not Unix". FreeBSD is not System V. MacOS is none of them.
    5
  7. venkatesh nair You're a very confused person. Xenix and DOS were different products for different markets. Windows and Unix never competed on the desktop. Unix couldn't compete against Linux, so it disappeared. I have no idea why you sent me a link to a document 15 years old, it certainly does not support your claims, since it says nothing about "FreeBSD".
    5
  8. venkatesh nair Now you're even more confused. Root servers ran different versions (not FreeBSD like you claimed) 15 years ago. Whoopee. I bet most of the nodes run virtualized Linux now. Old versions of DOS or Windows are irrelevant to this discussion. And Android is neither Linux nor Unix. Android is not Unix-like and is not Posix-compliant.
    5
  9. venkatesh nair I know that. What's your point? The reality is that most of the internet runs on Linux, and most of Enterprise runs on Windows. That's just the reality you seem to have a hard time accepting.
    5
  10. The concept of buffer cache existed long before Unix.
    5
  11. The buffer concept dates back to at least 1952 and the SEAC system.
    5
  12. Lukas Graphen Linux was a clone of Minix. It never had a relationship to any of the traditional Unix systems, and did not evolve from them. Why you guys keep bringing that up baffles me.
    5
  13. venkatesh nair Better go check your facts, cowboy, because you're just wrong.
    4
  14. venkatesh nair You seem confused about what caching actually is. You asked for an example, I gave one. Seriously, how long are you going to argue about this?
    4
  15. +David Dow Incorrect. Microsoft licensed it from AT&T, the way pretty much everybody else did.
    4
  16. "The philosophy of Unix"...heh, well, I think operating systems like MacOS and the typical Linux distro are about as far from that "philosophy" as Windows is.
    3
  17. venkatesh nair Internet root servers are virtualized. The physical servers number in the hundreds and run all sorts of operating systems.
    3
  18. venkatesh nair My friend, you know BIND runs on Windows as well, right?
    3
  19. venkatesh nair You are completely missing the point. Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson are acknowledged geniuses and major players in the history of modern computing. I never disputed that. What I pointed out instead is that commercial, licensed, paid for Unix systems have largely disappeared, and they have.
    3
  20. That's like saying there's a relationship between a Kia and a Bentley because they both have 4 wheels, 4 doors, a steering wheel, a shift lever, a transmission with gears, an internal combustion engine that works on the same principle, and both use gasoline. Not really a valid argument. It's possible for two systems to share a directory tree, a set of utility commands, etc., yet still be different systems. Modern Linux does not share any code with Unix, and none of the architects of the original Unix systems had anything to do with the creation of modern Linux. A lot of Unix admirers actually hate Linux and what it's accomplished, how about that?
    3
  21. +Kalum Batsch Whether or not Linux is GNU is open to debate. The GNU project used LInux as it's kernel for lack of anything else being available. They wanted to use HURD, but HURD is not complete and probably never will be. There are serious philosophical disagreements between the various kernel, GNU, and Free Software groups. I never said Linux had anything to do with Windows or vice versa, you have me confused with someone else. Linux was not designed or intended as a Windows replacement, and never will be...but some people have convinced themselves otherwise.
    3
  22. +Kalum Batsch I get the same feeling in this thread.
    3
  23. tetrabromobisphenol I'm well aware of that, they're just not the only way to interface with a computer anymore. Computing for the masses needs to be intuitive, and not require you to create scripts for mundane tasks.
    3
  24. +Kalum Batsch Well, I wasn't thinking of Android, though I sure have a lot of Linux fanbois insist that it is indeed a version of Linux... And maybe the GNU project just bit off a little more than they could chew. Microkernels aren't the end all/be all they were proselytized to be, anyway.
    2
  25. Knuckler There you go with those annoying facts again. We could point out that Unix was developed in the 60's-70's as a mainframe operating system, while DOS/Windows evolved in the 80's-90's as a personal computer operating system, while Linux was a student college project that happened to spark interest because it was unencumbered by licensing, but they don't want to hear about it. The fact that Windows and Linux, two "inferior" products compared to the mighty Unix, have pretty much dominated computing for the last 20 years is a source of endless aggravation to the Unix crowd.
    2
  26.  @IHateYoutubeHandles615  With all due respect, I think you're mixing your metaphors. HP Vue and CDE were Motif-based window managers for X-windows based systems using an X server. MacOS is an evolution of NextStep, which was Postscript-based and quite different in it's approach. Whether or not there was some borrowing of UI elements/functionality is irrelevant, since all intuitively obvious concepts will emerge regardless of who gets credit. Jobs and Gates were both inspired by Xerox PARC, but who remembers that? Everybody remembers Apple suing Microsoft over resizable windows and context menus which neither of them invented, and thinks Microsoft was the bad actor. Reading through this thread gives me a headache, the ignorance is painful.
    2
  27. Kalum Batsch Right...Linux is not part of the GNU project, and Torvald's hate for GPL3 is well known... I should have been more clear.
    1
  28. Kalum Batsch Linux has prospered to the extent it has in spite of GNU, not because of it. If the GNU project had controlled Linux it would be as irrelevant as the Hurd currently is.
    1
  29. Kalum Batsch Linux without GNU is still Linux. GNU without Linux is irrelevant. Point taken.
    1
  30. +Kalum Batsch You can build a Linux OS without GNU. You can't build a functional OS with just GNU components. That's the point you're missing. GNU likes to claim they invented everything. They didn't. They haven't produced a production ready OS in 20+ years of supposedly trying, and it doesn't appear at this point that they ever will.
    1
  31. +Kalum Batsch I pointed out that GNU components are not necessary to create a working OS. You can't dispute that, so you divert the conversation to Android, which I never mentioned, and which I don't consider to be any kind of Linux distribution. You then claim the YouTube comments system apparently couldn't exist without GNU or gcc, which is absurd. Like most (for lack of a better word) fanbois, you don't debate all that well, so you resort to calling me a dumbass. Bravo.
    1
  32. +Kalum Batsch Better yet, give me a technical reason why you can't build a Linux system without GNU. I doubt you can.
    1
  33. +Kalum Batsch You're the one claiming "Linux is GNU", when it's really not, and owes nothing to the GNU project. Linux used GNU tools because they existed, not because it was ever bound to them in some arcane way. What is gNewSense, something like 15% actual GNU software? Just more proof that GNU needs Linux far more than Linux needs GNU and their FSF fanatics.
    1
  34. Kalum Batsch LOL, give me an example of a GNU OS with no Linux code.
    1
  35. Kalum Batsch Who are you again? Oh, I remember. GNU/Hurd is not a thing, and never will be. It's not finished, nobody uses it, it's another irrelevant hobby OS.
    1
  36. Kalum Batsch We live in a world of moving goalposts, not that you're actually correct, or anything. When you or Stallman or anybody else actually figures out how to do anything useful with Hurd, get back to me...
    1
  37. Kalum Batsch Well, I suspect you could run the Hurd wiki on an old laptop with Windows XP, but that's kind of beside the point. Stallman doesn't use it. Perens doesn't use it. Guess it's not that useful...and there are lots of C compilers.
    1
  38.  @Krush206  You're trying to split hairs all tied into a knot. NextStep is based on the Mach kernel and BSD components itself.
    1
  39.  @Krush206  MacOS is a amalgamation of a lot of things, the most SIGNIFICANT of which are; the Mach kernel, FreeBSD kernel layers and userland, and the GUI layer adapted from Next...and I'm not ignoring a vast amount of development by Apple. Satisfied?
    1
  40.  @Krush206  Android is a fork that happened over a decade ago. It doesn't use any recent version of the Linux kernel, nor is it posix compliant.
    1
  41.  @Krush206  Thanks for making my point for me. GNU by itself, mostly irrelevant, while Linux prospers with or without it.
    1
  42.  @Krush206  "Originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating system, XNU was a hybrid kernel combining version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from 4.3BSD and an Objective-C API for writing drivers called Driver Kit." SMH.
    1
  43.  @Krush206  1. What version is the Android kernel? 2. What current Linux distro uses this kernel?
    1
  44.  @Krush206  What are you smoking? My phone has Android 8.0, security patch Jan 1, 2019, kernel version 3.18.71, compiled Jan 17, 2019. SMH.
    1
  45.  @Krush206  What do you mean, no longer supported? By who? Why would a phone kernel be changed, risking breakage? I've seen Android 7 phones using the version 2.6 kernel. And as of Android 9, Google IS laying down the law on which kernel version must be used...it's not up to manufacturers.
    1
  46.  @Krush206  Motorola e5. Just got it not too long ago.
    1
  47.  @IHateYoutubeHandles615  I won't argue that point, but I tend to think that the innovations that appeared with Unix would have appeared regardless.
    1