… and that is why the average user stays an average user.

Hey, i wanted to ask that!

why not curl? it also supports gopher 😉

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

“…This style was based on the use of tools: using programs separately or in combination to get a job done, rather than doing it by hand, by monolithic self-sufficient subsystems, or by special-purpose, one-time programs.”

https://ewontfix.com/14/

The more you learn about the original vision,. … it is kind of terrifingly brilliant and powerful. The architects knew exactly what they were doing. That’s why in the late 70’s they tried the keep it from the public! (you can send thx to rms - he opened it up for us)

Sure, systemd does what it is supposed to do. It is NOT bad design from the admins perspective, but from a os-architecture perspective. It is a huge single binary with a huge number of 0-day exploits (you can check those). The scale of the projects causes many possible exploits. A set of small programs, which do only one thing, is easier to maintain (^= decentralization of os-design)

1. There is not a scientific proof YET, but i think it can be done: for that we would need to program the “corner-stone”, which would be the *nix-program #1 - something that could show practically what the pioneers of the *nix system envisioned. This practical proof is possible, if we deep dive into the POSIX definition to analyze for what it was made.

2. unix is a trademark, but what counts is the architectural vision behind it (D. Richie&co.) I think it would be better to avoid the tradmarked word (sry for using it) - *nix may be a proper word (although it implies that it is a whole group)

or: cp my.iso /dev/sdaX

(much faster than dd)

It’s bad design and therfore a wrong standard. Also, it’s a security desaster.

the *nix system up to the shell enviroment needs to be clean, libre and true to the vision - everything beyond may be. … whatever…

I think the init system matters A LOT! Systemd is anti-unix-style and making it a “new default” and forcing it, by depending on it, is breaking the best os-design there is: the unix-like system. (who changes it will be forced to reinvent it…better stay close to the original vision in the first place)

If you’re into kernel hacking, you may consider supporting the HyperbolaBSD project, which seems much more promising than hurd.

Hyperbola has the best vision for a clean and libre general-OS.

Yes, they very strict about the interpretation of “libre”, but that makes the vision pure and crystal clear.

nevermind, parabola is a great distro (with openrc version), but hyperbola will not draw dev-power from pb, because it will be a completly own breed. Yes the existing BSD’s are great, but none of them are fsf conform.

The effort of the hb-bsd will produce OSS that can synergize with all the projects you named.

made me smile, have an upvote 😉

deleted by creator

More information: roadmap

https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:manual:contrib:hyperbola_roadmap

That is true. There are linux distros around with musl/busybox (alpine) and some distros without systemd. But i would really appreciate a fsf-conform distro with a fsf-conform BSD-kernel and the bsd userland - it’s just a nice addition to the existing oss-os world. It is not about “this OR that” - why not have both?

p.s. both runit and openrc are close enough to the unix philosophy

p.s.s. yes, macos derived from openBSD and is using a sytemd-like init, but - as said - macos mainly targets end-user system… it’s o’right for that - i think power users prefer os-designs closer to the unix philosophy.

BSD based systems (with the according userland) have a very clean and more minimalistic code base. In the last years Gnu/Linux systems drifted away from the ideals of the unix-style (e.g. systemd…). For an end-user-system this may be ok, but the general design of the bsd-systems is better imho.