From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 13759 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2021 13:31:53 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 Jul 2021 13:31:53 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 617D59CA36; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 23:31:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E77E9C9F2; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 23:31:01 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="Bg/sIGnP"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7BB9F9C9F2; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 23:30:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f175.google.com (mail-qk1-f175.google.com [209.85.222.175]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E72499C9F0 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 23:30:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f175.google.com with SMTP id i125so8579862qke.12 for ; Tue, 06 Jul 2021 06:30:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YOFxUfCaLum/sUjiTfFugBGuN9rOi5ZRN3nhYAYckzY=; b=Bg/sIGnPPcaL9gt2oLf7yBbl9lQrf5E5dK1IJKhSd1tCvPDNfqAdL63KZjNRnc0KgW ZEvn61BeHoTKTScExz2v5tLadwJ4rHtzG6aegRvU+I9gd/LamENO2MOV1PUF4JSInQ9K JIRycpXtMfiR/w7xZc2CS95NgVxfWut2B3SgQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YOFxUfCaLum/sUjiTfFugBGuN9rOi5ZRN3nhYAYckzY=; b=tYAJJMeIgtnjpv9bUxx/V7hrPZpvVXAlG7Qx6D85nZYjjNjfe6qzTdvAXncnYEVCji 6PXirhmV5mCSSWJ3ZpoI0WH352Ugjvg2emBqpG8eAO4xpFJO37hAfAPJXnSsivnMjRsX SzpiJcpTio4IqAgB9uNg5oOolFSIQVwuFps+/7sxRAu8M9bVOtpglxMn0eSorqvZcB7A UVP8U/sc54wMestQjnc0apRqcDauuDv9nBWnCrf8Z99H/c81VvOUsok9HZjgmubzBSL3 5auUkMD8mfGnKkbdFWVkQdUce5VeuimLFTpdLtM+JdD55KO8m4TrOTEZ8TrhEngqfhih j+Lw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310JG4i4L0eJJGonwa1UHhNDqNVMXEwzCgjiz2s3zIAG7R5/tSn KCKGOTgiIXgJ0j8jMu58ht4D6GuLcOQluYH8V7LyLwuwdttjME6N X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBnk50uta7xPDKaGOPU8DS1nN3nhyYJ9EBu4SEFz5WXihRFCvMynkJDQHRczYG34jaKuKqJ+hxc1YKo1lZOKA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:749:: with SMTP id i9mr20039501qki.307.1625578257876; Tue, 06 Jul 2021 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <06737C14-1122-4832-BCAA-A37B242F69E4@me.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:30:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: Nevin Liber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d992805c6746efb" Subject: Re: [TUHS] [tuhs] The Unix shell: a 50-year view X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000009d992805c6746efb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:13 AM Nevin Liber wrote: > head isn't needed because we can already do it with the command line >> options for sed. >> > Sigh ... fine except for the fact that sed(1) did not exist when head(1) was written. So you missed the point of my example. FWIW: if you want to pick nits, in this case, the solution with the former is redundant with the latter. IMO, That's ok as it follows in the basic tradition. UNIX has a number of ways to do similar things/solve the same problem, because it offers tools, the system designers do not try to dictate a singular solution. As I fear by the reaction, many of you have missed the point of what I was trying to say. I guess I did not do that clearly. Let me try in a shorter form. The basic idea of the original Unix was that was small and simple and in Dennis' words, 'ran on modest hardware.' The designers of UNIX also did not try to solve any one particular problem but offered a set of tools for a >>programmer<< take upon her/himself to do so. The issue is that the target >>user<< of UNIX had devolved from that of a 'programmer' but rather the elusive 'end user' and her/his view/requirements tend to be "solve my problem now -- I don't care how - just do it I don't want to think about it - make it go away." So over time, we hid a lot of the simplicity in features that were built on features (often warts) that were built on other features (often other warts). Mashey had a great visual in his "small is beautiful" talk using a 'build slide' in PPT terms that demonstrated the problem. I was commenting on the OPs post of the paper picking on UNIX, the UNIX Shell, and where we are today *vs.* 50+ years ago. My other point is the authors need to get over themselves and recognize that* they are not making a really new argument*. Folks were not too happy with many of the BSD 'features' either, but now those same features (like head(1) or BSD sockets= (3)) are considered SOP for nay new UNIX and you have to have them - even if there are other if not 'better' ways of doing the same thing. =E1=90=A7 --0000000000009d992805c6746efb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:13 = AM Nevin Liber <nevin@evilover= lord.com> wrote:
head isn't needed because we can already do it with t= he command line options for sed.=C2=A0=C2= =A0
Sigh ... fine= except for the fact that <= font face=3D"monospace" color=3D"#38761d">sed(1) di= d not exist when head(1) was written. = So you=C2=A0missed the point of my example.=C2=A0 FWIW: i= f you want to pick nits, in this case, the solution with the for= mer is redundant with the latter.=C2=A0 IMO, That's ok as it follows in= the basic tradition.=C2=A0 UNIX has a number of ways to do similar things/= solve the same=C2=A0problem, because it offers tools, the system designers = do not try to dictate a singular solution.

=
As I fear by the reaction, many of you have missed the point= of what I was trying to say. I guess I did not do that clearly.=C2=A0 Let = me try in a shorter form.

Th= e basic idea of the original Unix was that was small and simple and in Denn= is' words, 'ran on modest hardware.'=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The designers= of UNIX also did not try to solve any one particular problem but offered a= set of tools for a >>programmer<< take upon her/himself to do = so.=C2=A0

The issue is that = the target >>user<< of UNIX had devolved from that of a=C2=A0 &= #39;programmer' but rather the elusive 'end user' and her/his v= iew/requirements tend to be "solve my problem now -- I don't care = how - just do it I don't want to think about it - make it go away."= ;=C2=A0 =C2=A0So over time, we hid a lot of the simplicity in features that= were built on features (often warts) that were built on other features (of= ten other warts).=C2=A0 Mashey had a great visual in his "small is bea= utiful" talk using a 'build slide' in PPT terms that demonstra= ted the problem.

I was= commenting on the OPs post of the paper picking on UNIX, the UNIX Shell, a= nd where we are today vs. 50+ years ago.=C2=A0 My other point is= =C2=A0the authors need to get over themselves and recognize that they ar= e not making a really new argument.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Folks were not = too happy with many of the BSD 'features' either, but now those sam= e features (like head(1) or BSD sockets(3)) are considered SOP for nay new UNIX and you have to have them - even if there = are other if not 'better' ways of doing the same thing.
=E1=90=A7
--0000000000009d992805c6746efb--