The fact that people care a lot about Unix clones is significant, though. nine_k could have been more effective in arguing the point, but it seems like a strong point to argue. Do you think you Go is flexible enough to write a Unix clone with performance equivalent to a C-unix? If so, why has it not been done?
Besides the sibling Biscuit, maybe because no one bothered to do it?
As simple as that, not everyone of us is a Linus.
I should also point out that if you are using a Mac, changes are its iBoot Safe C might already been replaced by Embedded Swift, a GC enabled systems language.
Chapter 5 of The Garbage Collection Handbook, or A Unified Theory of Garbage Collection paper for the incoming replies related to RC.
People care about UNIX clones because they are lazy, UNIX has the source code available, and an existing ecosystem that they don't want to replicate, so it always ends up being yet another clone, thus throwing away all the possible innovations.
We see this happening even with Haiku, Genode, Redox OS, or Windows now shipping alongside Linux on top of Hyper-V.
Unless one is an Apple or Google, with the money and will power to push something out the door, using Objective-C, Swift, Java, Kotlin, with plain C and C++ standard libraries, and even then people will bend backwards to put UNIX into those systems, even when the platform owners went to great effort to hide it under the official userspace APIs.
> As simple as that, not everyone of us is a Linus.
I’m pretty sure Linus could not have written Linux today. Too much hardware to support, too many drivers to write, before it’s remotely useful. Well, except perhaps on some specialised servers.
Yes, not everyone is Linus. Otherwise we’d be using GNU Hurd. But he also came at the right time.
> People care about UNIX clones because they are lazy, UNIX has the source code available, and an existing ecosystem that they don't want to replicate, so it always ends up being yet another clone, thus throwing away all the possible innovations.
Which is a real shame, because people thinking outside the UNIX clone box have come up with some incredibly innovative operating systems like Plan 9 and OS/400.
Because of the 30 million lines problem. Writing a serious OS kernel nowadays is flat out impossible: the hardware is just too diverse, it requires too many drivers. The best we can do right now is just add to an existing kernel. Kind of a vicious cycle: the more drivers we accrete to any given OS, the more impossible it is to get feature parity from the ground up.
The only solution to that is for hardware vendor to standardise their interfaces (at the hardware level), and actually give us the fucking manual. And I mean the real manual, the one that tells us voltages and pins and baud rates and the actual wire formats required to talk to it. A proprietary Windows driver is not a manual, even if it comes with an SDK. Heck I’m not even sure the source code of a Linux driver would count.
But they won’t do it. They just won’t. So unless we do something drastic like forbidding hardware vendor to ever ship software (to force them to standardise and document their actual interfaces), writing another OS that can actually compete with the existing ones will remain flat out impossible.
On a system of that era, some scenes look far smoother with the GUS than SB16. With the GUS running, the CPU could focus on graphics because the audio was offloaded to the GUS. This was particularly true of the 3d flight scene.
Something that undermines the operating system angle is that emacs does not implement hardware drivers. All interaction with the computer go via system calls.
Norton Commander contains a text editor. Emacs operates at that level, whilst being reprogrammable.
What you say seems true. But a comment - there are more effective ways to achieve it than a bill of rights. Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights but does have decent due process, as a result of deliberate legislation. The bill of rights leads to the US Supreme Court being highly politicised because it is a nasty undemocratic backdoor to synthetic legislation. Australia does not have a politicised high court.
I'm Canadian, and as a fellow commonwealth citizen I don't think relying on common law precedent is stable. The common law, after all, is just whatever a judge says it is, and judges can be bought or unduly influenced.
As we're seeing in the United States, the Rule of Law itself is being fundamentally eroded. Laws in the USA are worth essentially nothing now, because the Executive Branch is brazenly and openly ignoring the law and Congress is either too inept or too corrupt to do anything about it. That culture of lawlessness is not going to just go away. It's already started and will continue to "trickle down".
What's more, neither the USA nor either of our countries are immune from political appointment of justices, and it's my understanding that Australia has in fact had some supreme court justices who were previously parliamentarians (sorry if these are not the correct terms), so that seems politically-motivated to me. The USA is merely ahead of us in crumbling, but I think we're in trouble too because their fucked-up political culture is so insidious in its spreading.
We've seen similar in Britain, with its much-vaunted "uncodified constitution". These systems, much like the common law itself, only work when everyone's more or less on the same page.
But when you have an entire political party that revels in shattering constitutional/governmental norms and conventions to the detriment of its perceived political enemies, the whole system gets ugly real quick.
> That culture of lawlessness is not going to just go away. It's already started and will continue to "trickle down".
Only for as long as it's allowed to continue. When the people who are acting lawlessly and those enabling it are finally held accountable and an example is made of them things can get back under control. It's just a question of how long it takes for accountability to happen and how painful that process will be for the rest of us. I'm still hoping it'll be as quick and painless as possible, but the longer it goes on the less likely that seems.
I have built large systems on python that use classes, for more than ten years. I came to it from Java, ten years.
As a rule, I avoid implementation inheritance. Occasionally I need to facade a library that assumes implementation inheritance to avoid it spreading into my codebase.
When the codebase hits a certain size, I hand-roll some decorators to create functionality like java interfaces. With that done, and a suite of acceptance tests, I find it scales up well.
This is a rough history from an outsider: the original developers (“DevTeam”) went quiet, and would not take in new talent. There was some new talent in the community, and momentum for code tidy up and new features. One group forked and called theirs nethack 4. There were other forks with a similar spirit, such as unnethack. Eventually, DevTeam decided to reach an accommodation with talent in the fork groups. Release 5 is a DevTeam release with input from what was new blood fifteen years ago.
The story is a bit more convoluted. After the 3.4.3 release in 2003, the DevTeam stopped releasing new versions. They were still responsive when contacted by e-mail, though. But then we also didn't know how the development version looked like.
In 2014 the dev version was leaked to the community and in the following discussions with the DevTeam on how to handle this, the DevTeam got the first shoot of new devs in a while which lead to the release of 3.6.0 in 2015. This version was a polished version of the dev version, also incorporating some of the popular community patches at the time. The 3.6 branch received regular bugfix and security updates (3.6.7 was released in 2023).
Since 3.6.0 there's a mirror repository of NetHack on GitHub. So the development version that was internally numbered 3.7.0 which would become 5.0.0 was always accessible and, contrary to the 3.4.3 era, could be played anytime and was also installed on the public servers to play.
> It's only certain strains of right-leaning governments that
> figure out you can grow the pie so rich and poor alike become
> wealthier.
Credit to a few. Roger Douglas in New Zealand. Contemporary Peter Walsh in Australia, the Hawke finance minister, also got it. Keating somewhat got it, and put his neck on the line for politically-difficult but structurally-easy growth-pie macro reforms as treasurer, but did not follow through for the politically-difficult and structurally-hard reforms, like wholesale sales tax, and then became a fixed-pie prime minister. Walsh was gone by then.
Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.
Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.
>Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.
Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.
Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system.
Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.
For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post.
By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy.
Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result.
In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy.
They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy.
He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign.
This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support.
But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.
Howard may have talked a lot about decreasing the size of government, cutting red tape, and reducing legislation and the cost of government. But all these increased under his terms.
Most of the early economic gain was due to the opening up of Australia in the nineties along with the floating of the dollar.
Dude was a dog whistling neo con, so I never liked him. But what is really telling is that the shitshow that is the current Australian housing crisis was foretold and discussed at length in the late nineties when he introduced the changes to cgt and ng.
He and everyone else knew what would happen even then with these changes. The liberal party thesis, openly discussed, was to prioritise legislation that would promote individualisation in order to break unions and get people to vote against their interests.
Plenty written about the other two you mention. Maybe you should read some of it.
arden is indefensible, but you like pinochet? your barometer for a good right wing government improving the quality of life is an actual dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of people?
"did exactly what you needed and nothing more" You can still do that. Build a config for openbox or dwm. While the wm still compiles you can ignore the fads.
Do you dislike type inheritance? Or only implementation inheritance? My view is that type inheritance is incredibly useful, both for single system programming, and rpc. Whereas implementation inheritance creates brittle systems.
