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:
- Small is beautiful.
- Make each program do one thing well.
- Build a prototype as soon as possible.
- Choose portability over efficiency.
- Store data in flat text files.
- Use software leverage to your advantage.
- Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
- Avoid captive user interfaces.
- 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.
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?