Explicit Systems

76 readers

1 users here now

This is a community for those interested in ethical, intentional, auditable, and FLOSS-first computing. Whether you run Arch, NixOS, *BSD, or a custom LFS setup, this is a space for people who treat software as a craft worth reflecting upon and believe the best tools maximally respect the user.

founded 1 week ago

MODERATORS

Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au

If the pioneers of Bell Labs were handed a modern Linux laptop, what would they rewrite first? (quokk.au)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au to c/explicitsystems@quokk.au

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We often talk about the Unix philosophy, but we rarely hold our modern stacks up to that original mirror. If we brought Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson, or Doug McIlroy into 2027 and showed them the state of modern computing (Electron apps wrapping web browsers, systemd, sprawling dependency trees like node_modules), they would likely be horrified by the rampant uncertainty and tech debt.

But if they were tasked with "redeeming" our modern software stack, where would they start?

Would they scrap the entire graphical stack and start over?
Would they look at modern package management and push for a return to source-based simplicity, or would they actually appreciate something like NixOS?
What is one piece of modern "standard" software that completely betrays the original vision of auditable, intentional computing?

How would the "forefathers" of computing fix our modern mess?

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I honestly don't think they would.

You're talking about taking people from decades past, showing them a new computer and wondering what they'd fix. I think they'd be more amazed with how far their software has come.

You might be thinking that modern operating systems are bloated and out of control. I think their founders would be impressed that they no longer have to work that hard to make the software work on modern hardware.

Apple guys say modern Macs would make Steve Jobs roll over in his grave. I think he'd be impressed by Liquid Glass and the very fact that we can do it.

[–] Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

These are good points to a degree, but how do you explain Plan 9? Isn't Plan 9 essentially historical proof of their principles rather than adapting to necessity? I'm not saying they wouldn't be impressed or enjoy taking liberties in tons of conveniences, but don't you think this would later appeal to their original inspirations and ideals? A part of me thinks that a few would eventually think, "These sharper tools and greater resources deserve more elegance/simplicity and composition.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago

I don't, because I don't have all the answers. Nowhere near. When given any fantasy situation ("how would X from Y feel about A from B?"), there are good answers with basis in what the people actually said, and there are feelings about humanity in general. Guesses, if you will.

[–] heliotrope@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 days ago

Ken Thompson and Doug McIlroy are still around. I can't seem to find an interview about such things, as interviewers tend to focus on the early days of UNIX and suchlike; but they do both have public email addresses, so we could always ask.

[–] AnotherWastedHuman@retrolemmy.com 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This kinda feels like bait for systemd venting.

[–] Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I almost avoided namedropping systemd because it seems to now essentially have it's own Godwin's law in the niche software circles :P

[–] AnotherWastedHuman@retrolemmy.com 2 points 5 days ago

Morbidly curious, but also afraid to see an example of the conversation veering that far off topic.

[–] black0ut@pawb.social 4 points 5 days ago

Systemd