[TUHS] [tuhs] The Unix shell: a 50-year view

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 08:48:23AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
[...]
> I didn't say that Unix is no longer relevant. I said that the problems that
> were prominent when Unix was built, and that thus shaped its architecture,
> are much _less_ relevant now than they were at the time. They still have
> some relevance, but are no longer primary for the vast majority of use
> cases Unix is used for. Further, the way people approach problems now has
> changed, even if they still generically assume "Unix" as the base they
> build on.

I have misread you then. I suppose the main problem that Unix solved
fifty years ago was the need for OS on a not very big (but cheap!)
machine. There were quite a few such systems and various such 16,
18-bit machines. So Unix was one of many, and what made it successful
was rewriting in C (I think I have read about it somewhere). Various
guys ported C compiler to their machines and to test it, they compiled
Unix sources (I am sure I have read about this). So as C gained
popularity, so did Unix gained popularity and C was the prog lang of
Unix, thus with every new Unix install C gained even more popularity.

So, looking from this perspective, maybe there was nothing
particularly special in Unix as such. It was just a double pump of
C-Unix, mutually pumping each other's success story.

I am not sure. I tried to find some time and install old OS on
simh/pdp11, yet there was always something more pressing to do. Some
alternatives to Unix, judging by their wikipedia descriptions, did not
convince me - like, one OS booted straight into debugger, if memory
serves. I do not think I would like that in everyday use. And after
reading about TECO, plenty of editors seem like better choice for me
:-).

Anyway, my own reasons to stick to Unix(-like) did not change. In
middle 1990-ties, after few years of playing with Amiga, and few years
of playing with SunOS/Solaris, it was clear to me what I wanted next
(Amiga was getting old rather quickly, as Commodore ran aground). The
OS was to be reliable, multitasking and if possible, cheap. If I was
to pay for something, it had to work, so Windows was ruled out. Later
on, as I hooked up to the net, security became important, too. Somehow
Linux on a 486 clone became a nice drop in replacement for Sunstation
and Solaris I used at the uni. I was able to run TeX on it, a
database, a program which abused database, an editor (Emacs, joe, vi)
with which I made the program and a compiler. All of this on eight
megs of ram. With "a bit" of swapping. That was terrific. To do same
thing on Windows, I imagined, at least Pentium and about 3x as much
ram was needed, plus a very expensive NT, because I did not expected
W95 could be relied upon.

If I still stick to Unix, it is because I still need something
dependable and allowing my various experiments or small time
developments. Windows somewhat improved during last twenty five years,
but not enough to pay for it - just MHO.

In other post you ask, why folks do not find Unix interesting
anymore. I still suggest they are following the money. They are the
kind of folk who never would find Unix interesting enough based on
merits only. Asking about their choices leads us nowwhere, because
their choices are not based on technical criteria.

What I would like to ask instead, is how many people had been using
Unix and decided to drop it, because it no longer worked for them. But
not because they had to earn for the living in a World of Windoze,
only because Unix tools stopped doing the job and could not be helped
with some handmade script or program. I guess reading more about such
users could tell something about Unix future or current relevance.

Also, reading about why people keep using Unix. Myself, I like doing
various things with computer. I create my own needs and then I write
small pieces of code to help myself out of the trap. Or something like
this. Nowadays, a lot of those needs revolve around learning and
organising notes. Of course I could not be using specialised note
taking program. Instead, I went with Emacs and org-mode. In the
process I had to learn a bit of Elisp and dot-emacs file. Some
defaults in Emacs are not comfy for my eyes - fonts, colors, it had to
be fine tuned to my liking.

So, I think my case could be summed up so: I need dependable software
and I have some needs which I know how to satisfy using this
software. If the software alone does not suit me, I can make some of
lacking elements myself and Unix allows me to join existing and new
elements easily.

I wonder if other Unix (ab)users share something with me? Like,
specialised single-person needs, or putting together building blocks
of command line tools, or preference for terminal based software
(because it works more often than not)? I guess yes.

What do people indifferent to Unix share with themselves, other than
general lack of interest, unwillingness to learn awk, disregard to
keeping information in text based, line oriented files?

HTH, sorry for long email, I tried to trim it but had to left
something too :-).

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **