Sensible advice.

What you are doing here is an Oxymoron. To ignore someone you have to "ignore that person". Writing this into every post that has my name in it... is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

I wonder if Chris Lumens and/or David Cantrell could do something.

I had no idea Ken had such a poor opinion of Linux in 1984.

5 members found this post helpful.

roflol!!!

Yea I don't get that at all... it must be a typo or something. Perhaps this whole thing was made up?

Especially since Linux did not yet exist in 1984. :-)

Looks like Mercury305 inadvertently copied the top reference rather than the bottom reference: ;-)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kenneth_Thompson

pretty much... because i was happy for a second that he did not say those words...

but here is the original referance... its also scattered across the net, including a reply from Linus as well.

I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft—a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very successful in the long run. I've looked at the source and there are pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies drastically. My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse.
"Unix and Beyond: An Interview with Ken Thompson", Computer 32 (5), May 1999, pp. 58-64[3]

Here I have the full article on PDF format

This goes out to all my fans that hate my guts as well whom I will not list there names as they will be fed with more atention. You are free to read it as I know you will since you have nothing better to do then to troll on my comments and this will educate you some more on Patriarch Thompson's teachings. You are welcome guys! I love you too...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...ieEjfvBqECOGTA

Now will this make me hate Unix or Linux... No, because I have never warshiped its creator like some of you do. I love using Linux/Unix and can't complain on it. But if you wanted to learn some real UNIX Philosophy, I would ask its creator instead of its followers that have created the "Unix Philosophy". There are 2 forms of Truth. 1 is Divine and Absolute Truth and the other is "Relative Truth" I will let you decide which is which.

I still love Slackware no offense. I love it for its Simplicity and Stability... Not for its Unix Philosophy. I love Unix because of its design. But its not a PERFECT Sytem. Nothing is Perfect. Everything has flaws. Denying this is not the right way to go...

I'm familiar with both of those articles. Trusting Trust is a classic. But I think the point needs to be made that the UNIX philosophy is not about some kind of blind hero worship, where if you can pull a negative quote out of the ether it's suddenly going to make the believers decide they are on the wrong path. But for the record, Ken was also part of the famous "Linux is obsolete" debate near the very start of Linux and had this to say:

Getting back to the UNIX philosophy... trying to transmit the UNIX darshan to the uninitiated can be a difficult trick, because it requires a lot of effort on their part. Here's an article that I've turned to for many years that pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic:

http://theody.net/elements.html

As far as Ken Thompson goes, he's one of my heroes, and I won't be holding something he said about Linux 13 years ago (or today, for that matter) against him. Besides, I suspect his opinion is somewhat different today since he works on Linux machines for Google, and has become one of the random contributors. The Go language he's been working on (along with other famous UNIX people such as Rob Pike) is already included in gcc (and Slackware -current).

2 members found this post helpful.

Patrick, I have nothing against you and the Unix philosophy. As a matter of fact whether you believe this or not but I LOVE you. I love your work and creation. Nobody is perfect and if you don't want systemd because you feel its not worthy for your distro then by all means go for it. I only put out my opinions and its your decision what to take from me and what to discard. All I am is one of your millions of users... thats all i really represent.

Thank You and have a nice day!

Some here repeat references to "worship" of the originatiors of the ideas of Unix, calling them demigods.

But that is not the case at all.

This, from the article linked by Pat above expresses it best (thanks again, Pat!):

It is the clarity of thought, the simplicity of truth that underlies all things, and the kinship among those who experience and value such things, that is wrongly interpreted as a kind of worship.

Instead it is a simple, shared respect. A respect not shared or understood by those who fail to share in the values that shape those thoughts.

Again you brought me back in here. How is systemd against UNIX Philosophy? That from what I read all because of one of the 3 principles "the one with a text stream input"? Everything else is arguable. I bet you $100 that Lennert also has a billion explanations of why he is working with Unix principles in his fast talking nature coming from a different angle of Unix Philosophy. Its the angle you view things. All relgions/philosophies have different angles to view the same thing. If Ken Thompson was so text stream based why is he working on an object oriented language right now? Is that Unix Philosophy? Object based administration since Go is designed for systems programming (lower level). Its simply a choice. Some users prefer console administration (me) some people prefer point and click... One doesnt make the other necessarily wrong. A badly coded X windows can crash the same way a badly engineered C terminal command. What really is important here is the code quality. Is systemd Quality Code? Does is break and shatter everything in its way? Only time will tell... All the rest on Unix Philosophy is "each to its own" we all view and learn things from different angles. I read the Bible and interpret verses differently then most people. Same thing can be said about Unix. Its the angle you look at the philosophy. But if you take Patriarch Ken Thompson word by word then you have to also take his word by word on what he thought about LINUX because that would make you a sinner by going against his belief structure. So again, Unix Philosophy is different based on the user. Heck, look up the definition of the word "Philosophy". Its not a concrete form. Its not like there are rules to a UNIX Philosophy. To each user over time experiences his/her own Philosophy about UNIX.

If all you can get out of the 'UNIX philosophy' is that only the quality of code matters, then you're not talking about the 'UNIX philosophy' -- you are instead talking about the 'idealist philosophy' (as opposed to the 'pragmatist philosophy' which would state that, as long as it works, it is good enough). The quality of code may be impeccable but its usefulness depends on what that code is actually *doing* -- the purpose of the program itself. systemd's philosophies differ from the 'traditional' UNIX philosophies in that it attempts to do multiple things (well or otherwise), and attempts to create *it's own* universal interface. It does attempt to make programs work together -- through itself, of course. systemd could be well written and serve its purpose well (and I'm not saying it does this, just that it can) but still be in opposition to the UNIX philosophy. And it is in fact in opposition. Whether or not you subscribe to the UNIX philosophy is a matter of opinion and not fact -- if you think that well written code is all that matters, then you subscribe to a different (though not necessarily incorrect) philosophy. I use Slackware because, for better or worse, its design philosophies fall in line with mine (and that comes with sacrifices that I live with because I maintain a preference for Slackware's philosophies [eg. KISS] rather than a purely pragmatic one [Ubuntu?] or idealistic one [Debian?]). I don't think anyone can call you 'wrong' for believing that systemd is a good step forward, but arguing that systemd does indeed follow UNIX principles because UNIX philosophies are up to interpretation *is* wrong. systemd is in opposition to those principles. Whether or not that is good or bad is a personal preference.

And *because* Slackware's philosophies have generally been *similar to* (though not necessarily identical to) the traditional UNIX philosophy, systemd's forced assimilation is a cause for concern for Slackware users. Whether or not it concerns users that have other philosophies is up to them to determine.

7 members found this post helpful.

Look, I disagree a lot with what you wrote on what my message was and what I personally believe in... But I am just too tired to argue. From now on "I Swear" to avoid such arguments and just simply use this forum for hardware and technical questions as long as I use Slackware... Good night.