Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The value of a particular approach to OS design depends upon what it's used for. This post seems to me to be making a number of assumptions in this regard and I found myself thinking "that doesn't apply to me" about much of what it states about UNIX.

Not a criticism per se, just stating that this definitely seems to be from a specific POV.

Having said that, I must say that a few claims are made that are head-scratchers to me, e.g. that UNIX is a "single-user system", and that an OS should be something that one can "learn programming" from.




This quote seems to sum it all up:

By your own admission, you "use" it, which makes you a "user", and as we all know, all users are clueless, therefore you are in no position to judge whether it is "usable". That's logic! -- Tweedledum


Also, doesn't xmonad (which I happen to use) count as a "programmable GUI"?


Not really. Oberon is an example of a programmable GUI, for one.


Interesting. I am a bit confused though as to how xmonad could not be considered programmable. I'm curious -- what does it lack in your opinion?


It's still just a WIMP interface. It might be a more flexible one since it's tiling, and it might support a larger number of configuration options than most.

An actual programmable GUI is one where there is no distinction between what is referenced at initialization and what is bound at runtime. You're actually live scripting the interface's own structures and moreover potentially concocting intricate programs out of the on-screen text that can be typed at any arbitrary offset, and is interpreted as a programming construct. Clicking on a piece of text can serve as an entry point or continuation for performing some form of computation, as it can point to anything, including the internal state of a system object.

You could read people rabble, or you could just try Oberon, Bluebottle OS or similar systems.


Just to rabble in agreement, one recompiles xmonad (typically with mod-q), where recompiling means loading one's entire xmonad.hs file. "Reloading a file," especially when that file is typically solely used for xmonad resources (and not for any object the user desires) is not nearly as programmable as a Smalltalk or an Oberon.


Gotcha. Understood.


xmonad is a window manager, not a GUI. You use it to move windows of a GUI around and resize them. The GUI is what happens inside those windows.


I see your point and don't disagree.

Using these semantics then, this is all user-layer stuff, and even less of an argument against "UNIX" itself. :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: