Re: [9fans] OT: What linux has become

[tlaronde@polynum.com]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:02:46AM +0200, dante wrote:
>
>[...]
> I also have the impression that the trend set by the original Unix
> architecture (small, one-job components, generic interfaces)
> is nowadays replaced in many areas with integrated solutions
> ("frameworks") that provide non-separable components
> and sometimes redundant interfaces.
>
>[...]
> One reason why I try to take what I can from Plan9 is that I profoundly
> mistrust systems that I cannot understand due to their size/bloat.
>

And the more "curious" (perhaps not...) is that the "trend" is on
"security", while I fail to see how there can be any security when the
software is not "maintenable" (from french : "tenir en main" i.e. be
able to direct and keep in one's hand).

There is a Borges short story about a library where one supposes
that every text possible is kept, hence if "the" solution about
the "why" is able to be expressed, "the" solution is for sure among
the books. Problem : it is not sure that one reading it will for sure
understand that this is "the" solution; and the time to read
everything in order to find it exceeds largely one's life time.
Consequence :  this "ideal" solution is absolutely useless. Software
nowadays seems like this : the time it takes to install and to
start is time lost for working with (and this may amount to some
time); the time to understand the thing or to debug it, is larger
than an average life time, and is not possible for an average human.
Security by threat (for example in "free" software): "one" can look at
the code. Yes... Try to find a needle in a hay stack... And these beasts
are Medusa: one look at the sources, and you're changed to stone by
fear.

There was also a comical story from a past artist about the
"improvements". The propaganda had made advertising for the "perfect"
washing powder. Problem: when the next one came out, it begun
difficult to explain that it was more than the previous perfection,
unless the very same vendor admitted the swindle... So the advertising
was explaining that by using the "new" improved washing powder, it
was even able to wash as perfectly as the old one, even if one made
knots with the clothes to "hide" the dirt inside (probably because
the "old" washing powder was using its big blue eyes to see the
dirt, while the "new" was using its nose). Conclusion: one had the
same result as before with the "improved" version, except it took
time to make the supplementary knots...and a week to try to undo
them after they spent some hours in the water...

Are there still human beings believing that "progress" is a function
of chronology: the newer, the better?
--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
              http://www.renaissance-francaise.fr/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C