Nice article and it explains nicely why *NIX is modular in that you can pass output from one command to another via pipes. Quite simply it was just an idea and a dman good one at that.
What the Unix guys did is to invent object orientation before the concept was actually invented. The Unix system *is* object oriented: each program is like an object that implements one interface with two methods: the input and the output. By wiring objects together, all sorts of processing was possible.
Another innovation was that each program did one thing only, and the wiring between programs was not hardcoded. One could write a million programs, each one doing a different task, but it was the capability of wiring them at will that gave Unix such flexibility.
The analogous of today would be if we did not program applications, we only programmed classes and then a 3rd party came and wired these classes together. Unfortunately, modern application development has chosen not to follow this way: applications consist of classes that are hardwired into a fixed set that makes change and rapid development difficult.
Finally, another good property of the Unix way is that there was no datatypes. Everything was text processing. We have come a full circle now that XML dominates the industry...it took us 30 years only to realize that text is the ultimate carrier of information.
quick history leason
by
karmagardless
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Thompson and Ritchie wrote Unix to play a game on. To make it portable they wrote C and a compiler. This was done at Bell Labs on their dime. They let Berkley, and some others, have copies to evaluate and improve, thus causing BSD, and other variants. AT&T allows this and causes the forking of Unix. Then through mirad stupidity and laywer speak we end up with todays chinese fire drill. All because AT&T did not think to guard their original IP by copyrighting it. Then allowed several groups to modify it without central control.
At least all Linux kernal mods have to be approved by Linus. It's more control than AT&T ever exerted when it mattered.
Re:quick history leason
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
UNIX was protected by copyrights, licenses and trade secrets. AT&T had plenty of lawyers. You needed a source license from AT&T to get the BSD source, as it was plainly a derivative work. AT&T did protect their IP. Thet just had liberal licensing terms, assuming that you had the money for the licenses. They had no desire to exercise "central control" over their licensees, which is a good thing. There were solid legal reasons for the way AT&T licensed UNIX, which are too complicated to go into here.
-- Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
How things have changed....
by
Savet+Hegar
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I miss the old-time mentality of things. People like this developed things because it made sense. They didn't file for 20+ patents a day. They didn't litigate against companies working on a project with similar goals.
It's too bad companies (like SCO) can't spend their time developing something useful instead of sueing the companies that are truly doing something good for the IT community.
-- Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
The funny thing is
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
UNIX wouldn't be where it were today if it weren't for patents. Not because patents were useful in the development, or because the initial C/UNIX technology was patented-- it wasn't-- but because about the first commercial sale of UNIX, the first big test case where things were ironed out, was in processing applications for the united states patent department.
I sure am glad times have changed
by
xiando
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"The first version of Unix was written by Dr Thompson for the PDP-7, a computer made by the Digital Equipment Corporation, which cost a mere $72,000, and came with eight kilobytes of memory, and a hard disk a bit smaller than a megabyte. " This was 30 years ago. I sure am glad a computer capable of running Linux can be bought for 1/100, or $720, these days...
This article seems as fitting as any to ask a question that always rolls around in my mind. While the beginning of my own computing career was in IRIX and Solaris, and now with most of my time spent on Windows machines I, of course, still understand UNIXs power and miss working with it daily.
But I guess I'm curious as to why nearly all OS focus is on UNIX or a derivative? From Linus's knock off, to Mac moving to a UNIX core to even the pretty original BeOS. Why are we reinventing the wheel and not coming up with something completely new?
This is not a troll, I am just looking for the various opinions. Is UNIX the basis for everything non-Microsoft because it's the pinnacle of perfection? Or, like movie plots, did 1 person invent a good thing and everyone else just replicates it with their own flare? It seems to me by now we might have 20/20 hindsight, a whole lot of real world usage and a completely new operating system based on "nothing" might be even better? I've heard of course the "because as soon as you have UNIX, you have access to a zillion packages that port easily", which is great, but frankly, does it matter that I can get X's little "Eyes" app running under my new BobIX OS in under 15 minutes? Maybe writing a completely new "Eyes" under a new OS could be as fast or faster than a UNIX port to a UNIX OS if the new OS was built right? The UNIX filesystem is a mess, that's always bothered me. I dont know, again, not a troll, UNIX rocks - just wondering why there isn't (or if there is?) any group out there writing completely new from the ground up without using UNIX as their model?
--
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Re:UNIX forever?
by
joeykiller
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I dont know, again, not a troll, UNIX rocks - just wondering why there isn't (or if there is?) any group out there writing completely new from the ground up without using UNIX as their model?
I don't know if this is satifying enough for you, but check out ReactOS. These guys are writing a Windows NT 4 clone from the ground up. Granted, they're not starting from scratch with entirely new ideas, but at least they're satisfying your demand of writing an OS "without using UNIX as their model".
Re:UNIX forever?
by
skyman8081
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes, I agree, that the UNIX'y way of things is showing it's age.
I mean, there have been some really good efforts to de-unixify unix, such as the STEP's (NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody, OS X)
how many normal users are going to figure out what/bin/usr/var/etc/sbin mean?
I know a at least two Linux distros that are going to attempt to fix this, GenSTEP and Komodo
from what I have seen and heard from the developers, the release looks to be very promising in terms of leaving behind the old timey UNIX guts, and looking like a modern, well designed OS.
the real question is, what is that programming language they have over ritchie's image? it's certainly not c. i've never seen it before, but it looks pretty lame.
Re:designers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Googling the keywords highlighted in yellow turns up a Filepro developer's reference, a Recital/4GL reference, and a page which is so badly formatted I didn't try reading it. Removing "clears" from the search brings up a lot FoxPro pages.
Mimicing Unix....
by
Savet+Hegar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think the reason so many try to mimic unix is because it is already the industry standard. Linux handles things differently, but the end result is fairly transparent to the end user. So one can switch from a Unix system to a Linux system (or vice versa) and have a good grasp of how things work.
With Linux being open source, and the BSD variants available as well, I don't see much of a need to reinvent the wheel. Not to flame Microsoft (though I definately never mind doing that), but they are living proof of what happens when a company tries to reinvent the wheel. You end up with an operating system that's insecure and prone to errors and crashes.
One has to wonder how much more stable and secure Windows would be if they had instead focused on a proprietary desktop software for Unix, bringing the speed and stability of Unix to the home users' desktop.
-- Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
Re:On the fifth day...
by
Tony-A
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"And because Dr Ritchie had been careful to keep the core of C very compact, this [write a compiler] was relatively easy to do."
Personally I think C is a lousy language, but: It is small. It is compilable. It is useable.
It is possible to make forward progress with minimal resources. Something much better that requires resources you do not have is just pie in the sky.
Re:Stangely
by
black+mariah
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing would have been different. It wasn't Free Software, ever. It was all duly licensed and inspected and all that good crap. It was proprietary software, patents wouldn't have done a thing to it.
-- 'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
It's true!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Allright, allright, I'm bragging, but... I have a PDP-7! Don't believe me? My pics. Please don't link to the main site, though, it's very much under construction.
Computing would not be what it is today. Thank god they did not patent any of it.
I like to think that the GNU project (and FreeDOS for that matter) would still have found a way to make free operating systems, even if they had to not base them at all whatsoever on any existing ones.
Oh, yes they would....
by
tiger99
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We would all still be programming with a panel of lights and toggle switches, as was common up till about the era of the PDP-11. I remember once keying in a bootstrap loader that way, fortunately it was only a very short one, designed to load a longer one from a punched tape.
Software patents would have killed progress than, as they are doing now.
Better links for Dennis Ritchie
by
ishmalius
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It should be noted by detractors of C, that Mr. Ritchie himself does not think that his brainchild is perfect. This discussion contains a "Critique" section where he analyzes the strengths and failures of the language. At the end, he summarizes the language thusly:
"C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success."
...to which I certainly agree. It is fraught with
numerous failings, yet C gets the job done, and carpets the computer world.
Re:On the fifth day...
by
Curtis+Clifton
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And God spake: "Let there be hell!" and thus the C programming language was born.;)
Blasphemy! (Feel free to choose which half of the quote I'm talking about.:-)
At the time of its creation, C was a real work of brilliance. Without the shoulders of C on which to stand, computing wouldn't be nearly as mature as it is today.
Kernighan and Ritchie's little white book on C is a masterpiece. All language reference manuals should strive to its level of clear writing and careful presentation. Despite not having coded a line of C in over 10 years, I still keep K&R at arms length. (If nothing else, it's helpful for quickly verifying my spelling of Kernighan when writing Slashdot posts.) It was enjoyable to read a column about the old masters.
Peace,
-- -- Curt
RMS is going to blow a gasket
by
robo45h
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The article mentions Linux briefly, and basically lays the entire GNU project at Linus Torvalds feet. There's no mention of RMS or the GNU project, who basically wrote all of the stuff above the kernel but just never got around to writing the kernel itself. Quite a bit of an oversight and over-simplification.
To an extent, this rivalry was stripped of relevance by an unexpected entrant. In 1991, an obscure university student in Finland, Linus Torvalds, announced a project to write a new, open-source clone of Unix from scratch--what has come to be known as Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice article and it explains nicely why *NIX is modular in that you can pass output from one command to another via pipes. Quite simply it was just an idea and a dman good one at that.
R
Cheap UK and US VPS
Thompson and Ritchie wrote Unix to play a game on. To make it portable they wrote C and a compiler. This was done at Bell Labs on their dime. They let Berkley, and some others, have copies to evaluate and improve, thus causing BSD, and other variants. AT&T allows this and causes the forking of Unix. Then through mirad stupidity and laywer speak we end up with todays chinese fire drill. All because AT&T did not think to guard their original IP by copyrighting it. Then allowed several groups to modify it without central control.
At least all Linux kernal mods have to be approved by Linus. It's more control than AT&T ever exerted when it mattered.
I miss the old-time mentality of things. People like this developed things because it made sense. They didn't file for 20+ patents a day. They didn't litigate against companies working on a project with similar goals. It's too bad companies (like SCO) can't spend their time developing something useful instead of sueing the companies that are truly doing something good for the IT community.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
UNIX wouldn't be where it were today if it weren't for patents. Not because patents were useful in the development, or because the initial C/UNIX technology was patented-- it wasn't-- but because about the first commercial sale of UNIX, the first big test case where things were ironed out, was in processing applications for the united states patent department.
"The first version of Unix was written by Dr Thompson for the PDP-7, a computer made by the Digital Equipment Corporation, which cost a mere $72,000, and came with eight kilobytes of memory, and a hard disk a bit smaller than a megabyte. " This was 30 years ago. I sure am glad a computer capable of running Linux can be bought for 1/100, or $720, these days...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
But I guess I'm curious as to why nearly all OS focus is on UNIX or a derivative? From Linus's knock off, to Mac moving to a UNIX core to even the pretty original BeOS. Why are we reinventing the wheel and not coming up with something completely new?
This is not a troll, I am just looking for the various opinions. Is UNIX the basis for everything non-Microsoft because it's the pinnacle of perfection? Or, like movie plots, did 1 person invent a good thing and everyone else just replicates it with their own flare? It seems to me by now we might have 20/20 hindsight, a whole lot of real world usage and a completely new operating system based on "nothing" might be even better? I've heard of course the "because as soon as you have UNIX, you have access to a zillion packages that port easily", which is great, but frankly, does it matter that I can get X's little "Eyes" app running under my new BobIX OS in under 15 minutes? Maybe writing a completely new "Eyes" under a new OS could be as fast or faster than a UNIX port to a UNIX OS if the new OS was built right? The UNIX filesystem is a mess, that's always bothered me. I dont know, again, not a troll, UNIX rocks - just wondering why there isn't (or if there is?) any group out there writing completely new from the ground up without using UNIX as their model?
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
the real question is, what is that programming language they have over ritchie's image? it's certainly not c. i've never seen it before, but it looks pretty lame.
I think the reason so many try to mimic unix is because it is already the industry standard. Linux handles things differently, but the end result is fairly transparent to the end user. So one can switch from a Unix system to a Linux system (or vice versa) and have a good grasp of how things work.
With Linux being open source, and the BSD variants available as well, I don't see much of a need to reinvent the wheel. Not to flame Microsoft (though I definately never mind doing that), but they are living proof of what happens when a company tries to reinvent the wheel. You end up with an operating system that's insecure and prone to errors and crashes.
One has to wonder how much more stable and secure Windows would be if they had instead focused on a proprietary desktop software for Unix, bringing the speed and stability of Unix to the home users' desktop.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
"And because Dr Ritchie had been careful to keep the core of C very compact, this [write a compiler] was relatively easy to do."
Personally I think C is a lousy language, but:
It is small.
It is compilable.
It is useable.
It is possible to make forward progress with minimal resources.
Something much better that requires resources you do not have is just pie in the sky.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing would have been different. It wasn't Free Software, ever. It was all duly licensed and inspected and all that good crap. It was proprietary software, patents wouldn't have done a thing to it.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Just look at Dennis Ritchie's Desktop (Real!)
Just what programming language is the code in this image written in? You'd think for Unix they'd use C or bourne shell, but it seems apparently not..
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
well, copyrights are meant to keep people from using a copy of your work without your permission.
patents are meant to keep other people from writing the same thing..
so.. if the command line for example was patented..
.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Allright, allright, I'm bragging, but... I have a PDP-7!
Don't believe me? My pics.
Please don't link to the main site, though, it's very much under construction.
toresbe
Computing would not be what it is today. Thank god they did not patent any of it.
I like to think that the GNU project (and FreeDOS for that matter) would still have found a way to make free operating systems, even if they had to not base them at all whatsoever on any existing ones.
Software patents would have killed progress than, as they are doing now.
It should be noted by detractors of C, that Mr. Ritchie himself does not think that his brainchild is perfect. This discussion contains a "Critique" section where he analyzes the strengths and failures of the language. At the end, he summarizes the language thusly: "C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success."
Blasphemy! (Feel free to choose which half of the quote I'm talking about. :-)
At the time of its creation, C was a real work of brilliance. Without the shoulders of C on which to stand, computing wouldn't be nearly as mature as it is today.
Kernighan and Ritchie's little white book on C is a masterpiece. All language reference manuals should strive to its level of clear writing and careful presentation. Despite not having coded a line of C in over 10 years, I still keep K&R at arms length. (If nothing else, it's helpful for quickly verifying my spelling of Kernighan when writing Slashdot posts.) It was enjoyable to read a column about the old masters.
Peace,
-- Curt