UNIX vs. FLOS

To me, the core of a UNIX system is a philosophical matter. To quote Mike Gancarz’s The UNIX Philosophy from 1994, UNIX has 9 paramount precepts:

  1. Small is beautiful.
  2. Make each program do one thing well.
  3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
  4. Choose portability over efficiency.
  5. Store data in flat text files.
  6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
  7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
  8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
  9. Make every program a filter.

FLOS is a nearly diametrically opposed design, with design concepts like the following:

  • FLOS avoids scripts, and prefers to split tasks into compiled logic interacting with logic-less configuration files.
  • FLOS prioritizes ease of machine manipulablity over human manipulablity.
  • The components of FLOS communicate over D-Bus rather than sockets and pipes.
  • FLOS is built on a core of monolithic programs which attempt to synergisticly manage multiple complex components.
  • FLOS leverages features specific to Linux and ignores portability.
  • FLOS prefers tightly integrated components to generic solutions.

I’m not sure that this is a bad design, but it is most definitely not UNIX or anything like it.

Linux Future | PAPPP's Rambling.

via Linux Reddit.

This here explains why a lot of stuff simply doesn’t work the way it used to: Xorg, NetworkManager, Pulseaudio. It also explains why no one outside of IT uses Linux for real-world software development; you don’t have to fight OS X to get started writing code. FreeBSD is almost there as well, with people switching over to it to avoid dealing with the eldritch abomination that is D-Bus.

Are FLOS proponents still butthurt by Microsoft? So much that they would turn the OS on top of Linux-the-kernel into a bad imitation of Windows?

Authornullrend

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER