Unix philosophy is dead! Long live... something else?
32 points by FedericoSchonborn
32 points by FedericoSchonborn
I think the core of this author's complaint, one that I've seen posted dozens or hundreds of times, lives in these two paragraphs:
We used to be a rebellion against big tech. An alternative with huge aspirations, and even larger pros/cons if one decided to depend on it. 90s and 2000s open-source was genuinely cool, and it felt like a place where things are possible. Where you could change something meaningful, and make the world a better place. The earlier you go, the less money was in the game, and the more innovation happened just because we could improve things. This is what got me excited about OSS back then: the hacker spirit, the promise that despite all the shortcomings and an impossible learning curve, something better was possible. Back then, that's what gave me hope.
And now? Open-Source is corporate as fuck. Instead of committing crimes because we believed the law to be wrong (see: libdvdcss), we're implicitly complying with regulations that exist purely to undermine our freedom, "just to be safe". It feels like everything that remains of the innovative spirit is centralized within hyper-specific groups of burnt-out (mostly queer) hackers.
If you're the type of person who builds their sense of personal value on a sort of permanent state of teenage rebellion then you have to be careful about which hobby you choose to express that rebellion in.
If you wear only second-hand clothes and listening to teknoyodel and talking a lot about how capitalism is bad, then you can keep up that identity of rebellion indefinitely. The choices are sufficiently at odds with society that you'll always have something to scoff at your parents and/or contemporaries and/or kids nowadays.
But if you rebel by using computers with a POSIX syscall API that run mostly open-source software then you can get away with it for a time, because the OSS of the '90s is rough and crashy and bare-bones, but eventually someone might come along and improve it and then what's your plan? You've built your cool secret clubhouse on a cold barren empty beach, not realizing it would fill up with people once the weather warmed up.
If you're the type of person who builds their sense of personal value on a sort of permanent state of teenage rebellion
So dismissive. Is it impossible that people have genuine and deeply held beliefs about what a better world looks like that conflict with yours?
It's the classic "I've never experienced emotion x, therefore emotion x is worthless or stupid or wrong or not even real".
All of this notwithstanding, it is OK to be pissed that we've let chain stores, sun-chairs for hire and trashy tourist bars ruin our beach, no?
This didn't have to happen. A better world was possible. But to be clear, a far worse world where the FOSS movement died could also have materialized. We got a pretty mediocre outcome I think, but that shouldn't prevent us from aspiring to something better.
All of this notwithstanding, it is OK to be pissed that we've let chain stores, sun-chairs for hire and trashy tourist bars ruin our beach, no?
No, I don't think it is OK to be angry about other people taking action to change the world into something they prefer and which is more comfortable for them.
You want to use an OS that will push away the general public? Install TempleOS, or Haiku, or SerenityOS. By construction they aren't going to conform to anything conventional, nor become popular enough to no longer be inherently counter-cultural.
This didn't have to happen. A better world was possible. But to be clear, a far worse world where the FOSS movement died could also have materialized. We got a pretty mediocre outcome I think, but that shouldn't prevent us from aspiring to something better.
What's "this"? What, precisely, do you think is bad about a world in which the most popular operating system in the world[0] is a Linux distribution? State your complaint.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
What would the "something better" be? A world where Android and iOS don't exist, software is distributed in source code form, and personal ownership of computers is as unusual as owning a 3D printer? What an incredible waste of potential.
No, I don't think it is OK to be angry about other people taking action to change the world into something they prefer and which is more comfortable for them.
I think we have a very different outlook on life. That's ok. But hopefully you do acknowledge that lots of people get legitimately upset if e.g. a location of great natual beauty is turned into a drab strip mall. Even when the process is entirely legal.
You want to use an OS that will push away the general public? Install TempleOS, or Haiku, or SerenityOS. By construction they aren't going to conform to anything conventional, nor become popular enough to no longer be inherently counter-cultural.
I didn't say I want to push away the general public. Just because I don't want them to pave over the aforementioned place of beauty doesn't mean I don't want them to enjoy it.
What's "this"? What, precisely, do you think is bad about a world in which the most popular operating system in the world[0] is a Linux distribution? State your complaint.
It's not terrible. Hence why I called it mediocre. It would just be a helluva lot better if it were like "ordinary" Linux.
What would the "something better" be? A world where Android and iOS don't exist, software is distributed in source code form, and personal ownership of computers is as unusual as owning a 3D printer? What an incredible waste of potential.
How about a world where there's 10 competing operating system that all respect open standards, allowing true interoperable competition?
How about a world where software distribution channels can be swapped out, where your OS provider isn't the gatekeeper of what software you can install and run?
How about a world where trust chains that extend to hardware aren't bound to a duopoly, but truly under the control of the user owning the device?
None of these improvements necessitate computing devices being weird rare things. I don't even understand how you make that leap. Could you elaborate?
I didn't say I want to push away the general public. Just because I don't want them to pave over the aforementioned place of beauty doesn't mean I don't want them to enjoy it.
But you want them to enjoy it in the same way you do, right? You see a beach and want to enjoy its pristine natural beauty, they see a beach and think it'd be a great place for a margarita while listening to the Beatles at max volume.
It's not terrible. Hence why I called it mediocre. It would just be a helluva lot better if it were like "ordinary" Linux.
By "ordinary" you mean something like Debian or Arch? Those options exist today, and people are not choosing them, which means people prefer the iOS/Android approach (stable OS + third-party applications) to the old-school approach of a unified package manager + ad-hoc local builds.
Hell, I've been using Linux for 20 years and I still get annoyed at how awful the apt experience is compared to what macOS/iOS/Android have. Why would a normal non-nerd person ever choose to use this?
How about a world where there's 10 competing operating system that all respect open standards, allowing true interoperable competition?
That could exist today if people wanted it, but they don't, so it doesn't.
How about a world where software distribution channels can be swapped out, where your OS provider isn't the gatekeeper of what software you can install and run?
That exists today, and has from the very beginning: Windows and macOS (the two dominant OSes on desktop/laptop form factors) don't restrict which software can be installed.
You want to know why iOS is locked down, and Android requires hoop-jumping to unlock? It's because people don't want to install arbitrary software. They want to choose from a set of software that they know won't come bundled with a keylogger or encrypt their wedding photos or send their retirement account to a bitcoin wallet.
People are willing to pay more money and put up with annoying UX just to avoid having to think about whether the applications they're installing might be malicious.
How about a world where trust chains that extend to hardware aren't bound to a duopoly, but truly under the control of the user owning the device?
Hardware like this exists and people don't buy it.
None of these improvements necessitate computing devices being weird rare things. I don't even understand how you make that leap. Could you elaborate?
The world you describe has computers that normal people don't want to use, so fewer people will use them.
The world you describe used to exist, back when computers were finicky and difficult to configure. The mass adoption of locked-down smartphones is because that's what the general public wants their computer to be. If you take away the unlocked smartphones then people won't suddenly develop an interest in managing their /etc/ directory.
You can't force people to value the same things you value, especially not if you value those things because they are rebellious and counter-culutral.
Look, I think our discussion can be boiled down to a fundamental difference in outlook. You see the path chosen as being the best by definition, because if it weren't the best it wouldn't have been taken. In my view, societies – even those where everyone feels they're making their best choices – can end up down bad paths
What would the "something better" be? A world where Android and iOS don't exist, software is distributed in source code form, and personal ownership of computers is as unusual as owning a 3D printer? What an incredible waste of potential.
Why do you think a world where software is distributed as source code means that personal computer ownership is impossible? Why do you doubt people would make one-click installers or distribute binaries? We have a wide ecosystem of open source software now and it is no harder to manage than any other software (and in fact, being open source makes it easier to package and distribute than proprietary software distributed as only binaries).
I think OP and GP have the same complaint: the hacker movement of the 80s and 90s, the association with open source, the pushback against commercialization of cyberspace and our computers -- that failed. We had a functional anarchosyndicalist commune in the internet and the capitalists found there was unextracted profit and they took it.
I too miss the community and the promise of technology in the 80s and 90s.
Why do you think a world where software is distributed as source code means that personal computer ownership is impossible?
Not impossible -- a world where software is distributed as source code makes personal computer ownership uninteresting. Normal people do not want to deal with the inherent annoyance of spending three days figuring out why their word processor's build broke.
Why do you doubt people would make one-click installers or distribute binaries?
(1) Because if it's too easy for people to install software then it's not a rebellion any more, and (2) I don't want to install binaries built by random unknown people.
We have a wide ecosystem of open source software now and it is no harder to manage than any other software (and in fact, being open source makes it easier to package and distribute than proprietary software distributed as only binaries).
So the complaint is that people have the option of using non-open software, and they're choosing to exercise that option?
It reads like you're blaming individual people for being unable to fight systemic capitalist recuperation. In the meantime, yes, we ought to be in a "permanent state of teenage rebellion" against capitalism. We have an ethical obligation to make the world better for future humans and environmentally stable for all life, and capitalism doesn't advance either of those goals.
I don't know if you realize it, but messages like yours are dripping with privilege. It's great that capitalism's been nice to you, but it's not nice to most people. If you're tired of hearing about how much capitalism sucks, why not try not defending capitalism for once?
I've noticed that whenever people blame "capitalism" for some unfortunate aspect of their life, they're actually blaming some combination of human nature and physics. It's not capitalism that makes people value their social life over hacking on open-source software, nor is it capitalism that causes people to enjoy activities that are different from what you enjoy.
We have an ethical obligation to make the world better for future humans and environmentally stable for all life, and capitalism doesn't advance either of those goals.
Capitalism is an emergent strategy for distributed allocation of scarce resources in a large society. The major alternatives to capitalism either assume abundant resources (which is not true of the physical environment in which humans live), assume a small society (which is then vulnerable to conquest by its neighbors), or attempt to centralize allocation among a small group that can then forcefully constrain the living conditions of the larger group (which most people don't enjoy living in).
Critics of capitalism often assume that the people who benefit from it (i.e. those with highly-valued skills) want it to continue for reasons of social status, but that's not really true, is it? Nobody wants to work, we just do so because people give us money in exchange, and I can pay someone else that money to do things for me. Someone who has "won" at capitalism is someone who has enough money that they don't need to work and can spend their time fishing or chatting with friends in a park.
If you want to end capitalism then you'll need a way for people to lead good lives without depending on the labor of others, which implies matter replicators and benevolent robots, which I don't see a lot of striving toward in non-capitalist spaces.
It is capitalism which motivated Xerox and others to close their software in the 80s, leading to the birth of Free Software. The rest of your opinion is a disguised appeal to nature which only works if capitalism is a natural and efficient state of affairs. However, there is no natural description of markets and, as discussed previously, on Lobsters, the free markets which capitalism prefers are likely inefficient.
It is capitalism which motivated Xerox and others to close their software in the 80s, leading to the birth of Free Software.
Sure, and it was capitalism that nearly drove Xerox out of business. What's your point?
However, there is no natural description of markets and,
The link you posted is to your own StackOverflow question (3 upvotes), which you answered yourself (0 upvotes), with an assertion that markets have no mathematical formalism, which ... sure, ok, what does that have to do with the conversation? Are we talking about math, or humans?
I feel like you're reading much more into my reply than what is actually there, and trying to use it continue a debate you once had with someone else, but I am not that person and I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Capitalism is the fairly simple process of a government issuing currency and then demanding a return of that currency, which serves as a way to coerce its citizens into performing economic activity. There are other options, many of which have been experimented with in different parts of the world over the past few thousand years, but capitalism has the advantage of serving as a neutral medium for other forms of smaller-scale government. A dictatorial corporation and a harmonious workers' cooperative can both exist in a capitalist economy on even footing.
as discussed previously, on Lobsters, the free markets which capitalism prefers are likely inefficient.
The inefficiency of markets is well-known by everyone on every side, what of it? If you want to argue with someone who believes the free-market variant of capitalism is the best possible economic model and always produces the most optimal outcome then you'll need to search for someone else.
Capitalism is the fairly simple process of a government issuing currency and then demanding a return of that currency which serves as a way to coerce its citizens into performing economic activity.
That describes practically every governing system with currency. It does not describe the key features of capitalism. Either you misspoke, or you just don't know what you're talking about.
If it's the latter, there's no shame in that. CORE Econ is a good resource for learning more about economics. https://www.core-econ.org/
You don't need taxes (or currency) in a non-capitalist economy -- when private property doesn't exist and all resources are communally managed, what purpose would currency even serve?
teknoyodel
Thanks for the recommendation, I found this unironically nice track!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWP4wIndJ0
If you liked that, you might also like this more conventional electronic track: Yodeling in Meadow Hill (Hidden Retreat). The yodeling starts at 0:17. It’s one of my favorite tracks from the Tekken 6 Soundtrack.
Open Source is not and has never been about a "rebellion". It's about owning what you have bought, private property.
In this sense it is not outdated and will not be outdated ever.
UNIX philosophy is also far from dead, it's just nowadays it's called "microservices".
Formatted text as a medium if data is also alive, programmers use markdown a lot.
Generally I'm just seeing a burnt out man who expected too much.
On the other hand, there is a lot of wasted effort in the open source community, people spending time on writing a multimedia player number 1578 instead of writing something which would really liberate some people willing to be liberated.
Open Source is not and has never been about a "rebellion". It's about owning what you have bought, private property.
Agree, although that also seems to be a permanent state of rebellion, because there will always be a big company trying to take away that ownership.
To me what really changed is the early 2000s OSS used a lot more local code which the user could control. Today's systems talk to remote servers and are given 10s of MB of Javascript to execute. It changes frequently so users can't just save away their own altered version, and browsers are hostile to that type of thing anyway. In effect, everyone is free to maintain their own hypervisor that runs software in a closed sandbox.
The purpose of that sandbox is to control access to the data that you care about - email, chat, documents, etc. Big companies have become very rich and valuable with this level of control.
To me what really changed is the early 2000s OSS used a lot more local code which the user could control. Today's systems talk to remote servers and are given 10s of MB of Javascript to execute. It changes frequently so users can't just save away their own altered version, and browsers are hostile to that type of thing anyway.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. Or what "systems" are for you.
For me, OSS has changed very little in the past 15 years. Maybe lxc/virtuozzo became docker, but Firefox is still Firefox, Evolution is still Evolution, xchat ... is hexchat, but the difference is minimal. Blender is still Blender, Cinelerra is still Cinelerra. Linux is still Linux. Two outliers are systemd and wayland, and I luckily managed to avoid them at home. (I switched to systemd at work, but it's also not a terminally online thing.) Xmpp is still xmpp.
I am using discord, signal, telegram, and a few other disasters written in Electron, but I still hope that eventually we will write wrappers around them to map their message models to deltachat. It cannot be that hard given that we have Selenium.
I see so many grumpy people always seeing the bad side of things. Yes, a lot of the open source isn't what it used to be, but if you look in the right corners of the web I think it's just as bright as it was in the '90s. You just have to know where to look. And honestly some programs are better than they use to be. I I remember having to actually read the monitor manual so that x Windows wouldn't ruin it because you had to change the . Clocks lines or you'd blow the monitor up. I love new new rust CLI commands that have Auto completion and I don't have to do a man page with Capital a to lower z in options
You might find Malleable Systems Collective and Social coding commons interesting, regarding malleable software and social experience design, respectively.
Picture 9 is something.
Indeed. Would be interesting to get a link to the screenshotted comment.
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954#issuecomment-4054851200
It's one of the last comments in a contentious 200+ post thread, so I suspect Claude's contribution to the review process was as a probabilistic linter.