On 9/4/2023 9:37 AM, chrisq wrote:
> On 8/29/23 19:54, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Linux has also squeezed FreeBSD market share.
>>
>> Primarily for non-technical reasons:
>> - Linux got backing from IBM, Oracle etc.
>> - Easier to hire Linux expertise
>> - Many companies standardize on a Linux only strategy for applications
>>    (exception for the stuff supporting PC's)
>> - Cloud vendors has pushed Linux
>> - Many companies are moving applications to Kubernetes on Linux (*)
>>
>> *) I believe that FreeBSD got jails before Linux got containers and
>>     jails should be just as good, but FreeBSD jails does not have
>>     the eco-system that Linux containers has (Kubernetes, OpenShift etc.)
>
> What FreeBSD has managed to do is to maintain the elegance and
> simplicity of trad unix, while including advanced system
> options like ZFS in the out of the box distribution. Fully
> preemptive / real time without a compiler rebuild. Makes it a
> worthy successor to Solaris, which was noted for its robustness.
> Run a public ntp server, hundreds of hits a minute at times. It
> has a current uptime of over two years. On a ups of course. but
> seriously reliable. At least partly due to a very  conservative
> design process and a software engineering attitude. Thousands of
> packages, including most Linux packages, with those that are not,
> built from source. All the usual desktop choices, with xfce4
> being the best compromise between lightweightness and features.
> Just gets the job done with minimum of fuss.
>
> Compare that with Linux, earlier versions still in use here, but
> becomes ever more complex and opaque. Had to give up on it after
> the systemd trainwreck. A valid windows substitute, nice decor,
> but not for serious work here. The most professional distros at
> present are arguably Suse and Debian, imho...

There is the purely technical perspective.

The biggest advantage for Linux is that they have
the resources available to code anything - if they find
out they need a million lines of code to implement something,
then it will get done.

The biggest problem for Linux is that they have
the resources available to code anything - the size
of the code base is growing quickly. The result is
complexity. And maybe not everything that at some point
was deemed a good idea is considered so 5 or 10 years
later.

*BSD has much fewer resources available. They may not
want systemd, but even if they had wanted it, then I don't
think they could have produced it as fast as Redhat did
for Linux.

But one thing is the "technical beauty contest". Something
else is the business perspective.

Linux got the support the businesses want. Linux is "good
enough". And the average Linux using company does not care
about how much code there is in the Linux kernel to maintain.

So businesses pick Linux.

Arne

On 8/29/23 19:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 9:15 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> Very much FreeBSD here for some years, after decades first with
>>>> dec,
>>>> then Sun. Forms the basic of at least some proprietary offerings,
>>>> as
>>>> well as millions of embedded devices. Linux is still a unix,
>>>> and runs the majority of web sites of the world, so if anything,
>>>> unix has won the os wars...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, very much so. (And I can't believe Arne thinks the *BSDs have no
>>> serious users... :-) ).
>>
>> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
>> not even close.
>
> Yes. But.
>
> NetFlix is running their general server load (node.js, Spring Boot,
> Kafka, MySQL, Cassandra etc.) on Linux (supposedly Ubuntu)
> in AWS.
>
> NetFlix chose FreeBSD for their CDN appliance that they deploy
> at ISP's.
>
> Maybe not so important market share wise.
>
> But certainly proof of FreeBSD's technical qualities. The default
> choice would have been Linux, so FreeBSD must have proven to
> be better to be selected.
>
> Arne
>

Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.
It's what happens when good technical projects get corrupted by big
business politics, which are rarely compatable...

Chris

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:57:27 AM UTC-7, chrisq wrote:
> On 8/29/23 19:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 8/29/2023 9:15 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>>> Very much FreeBSD here for some years, after decades first with
> >>>> dec,
> >>>> then Sun. Forms the basic of at least some proprietary offerings,
> >>>> as
> >>>> well as millions of embedded devices. Linux is still a unix,
> >>>> and runs the majority of web sites of the world, so if anything,
> >>>> unix has won the os wars...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, very much so. (And I can't believe Arne thinks the *BSDs have no
> >>> serious users... :-) ).
> >>
> >> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
> >> not even close.
> >
> > Yes. But.
> >
> > NetFlix is running their general server load (node.js, Spring Boot,
> > Kafka, MySQL, Cassandra etc.) on Linux (supposedly Ubuntu)
> > in AWS.
> >
> > NetFlix chose FreeBSD for their CDN appliance that they deploy
> > at ISP's.
> >
> > Maybe not so important market share wise.
> >
> > But certainly proof of FreeBSD's technical qualities. The default
> > choice would have been Linux, so FreeBSD must have proven to
> > be better to be selected.
> >
> > Arne
> >
>
> Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
> desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
> environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
> which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
> right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
> remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
> is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.
> It's what happens when good technical projects get corrupted by big
> business politics, which are rarely compatable...
>
> Chris

Arne: what were the responses to the poll you posted earler?

On 9/4/2023 11:57 AM, chrisq wrote:
> On 8/29/23 19:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/29/2023 9:15 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
>>> not even close.
>>
>> Yes. But.
>>
>> NetFlix is running their general server load (node.js, Spring Boot,
>> Kafka, MySQL, Cassandra etc.) on Linux (supposedly Ubuntu)
>> in AWS.
>>
>> NetFlix chose FreeBSD for their CDN appliance that they deploy
>> at ISP's.
>>
>> Maybe not so important market share wise.
>>
>> But certainly proof of FreeBSD's technical qualities. The default
>> choice would have been Linux, so FreeBSD must have proven to
>> be better to be selected.
>
> Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
> desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
> environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
> which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
> right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
> remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
> is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.

There are always someone willing to chose less
common paths.

But the majority go with Linux. And Windows must be
number two. And the rest is niche.

Nothing wrong with being niche. It also has its
advantages. But one need to be realistic.

Arne

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:57:27 AM UTC-7, chrisq wrote:
> On 8/29/23 19:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 8/29/2023 9:15 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>>> Very much FreeBSD here for some years, after decades first with
> >>>> dec,
> >>>> then Sun. Forms the basic of at least some proprietary offerings,
> >>>> as
> >>>> well as millions of embedded devices. Linux is still a unix,
> >>>> and runs the majority of web sites of the world, so if anything,
> >>>> unix has won the os wars...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, very much so. (And I can't believe Arne thinks the *BSDs have no
> >>> serious users... :-) ).
> >>
> >> Netflix picked FreeBSD as it could chuck out data at 400GB/s. Linux was
> >> not even close.
> >
> > Yes. But.
> >
> > NetFlix is running their general server load (node.js, Spring Boot,
> > Kafka, MySQL, Cassandra etc.) on Linux (supposedly Ubuntu)
> > in AWS.
> >
> > NetFlix chose FreeBSD for their CDN appliance that they deploy
> > at ISP's.
> >
> > Maybe not so important market share wise.
> >
> > But certainly proof of FreeBSD's technical qualities. The default
> > choice would have been Linux, so FreeBSD must have proven to
> > be better to be selected.
> >
> > Arne
> >
>
> Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
> desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
> environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
> which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
> right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
> remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
> is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.
> It's what happens when good technical projects get corrupted by big
> business politics, which are rarely compatable...
>
> Chris

It's true that systemd caused quite a kerfluffle when it was first introduced to Debian. I think it's the right decision. As for tentacles, systemd's are from macos. The way Debian has deployed it, system control is still accessible via the traditional /etc/init.d route.

With Bookworm comes the loss of /var/log and its ilk in favor of journalctl.. It's the paradox of *nix that to retain useful software, one must customize the stock installation in ways most VMS sysdmins would abhore.

Nevertheless, the utility of systemd as a bootstrap mechanism over /etc/init.d should be obvious to a system mangler needing to manage the tangle of dependencies that is the modern OS bootstrap sequence.

Add to that the novel requirement to support virtual machines, a systematic approach to the customizations we need to enable the multiplicity of these systems is ever more appropriate.

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:16:44 AM UTC-7, Johnny Billquist wrote:

(snip)

> There is still some issues with ODS that certainly could be improved.
> But then it's usually actually RMS that is the bottleneck. But as Bob
> Gelzer observed and commented, RMS can be tweaked to at least give much
> better performance that it does by default.
(snip)

> I think I remember from maybe a year ago that RMS under VMS don't allow
> you to us locate mode for writes. Which means that any writing of data
> via RMS involves at least one data copy. That's sad, and it would be
> nice if it was improved. RMS under RSX do allow locate mode for writes.
> But I wonder how much code isn't using locate mode for reads as well,
> meaning yet another copying of data there.

IBM OS/360 and successors allow for locate mode I/O.

Even PL/I allows for it.

But the OS/360 CKD disks allow a program to specify the size of each
physical block on the disk. So, record boundaries also match up to
block boundaries. (For files with variable length records and blocks,
they are written to that exact size by the hardware.)

Depending on the file system and blocking, though, it might be that record
boundaries don't match up. That complicates locate mode I/O.

On 2023-09-05 03:22, gah4 wrote:

> Depending on the file system and blocking, though, it might be that record
> boundaries don't match up. That complicates locate mode I/O.

Definitely true. But if people are ready to accept some more waste,
there is also an option in RMS to not have records that spans blocks.
Not sure if that is meaningful if records are larger than a block, but
this is otherwise again something that can be used to improve performance.

If not, then records that spans blocks have to be copied, which at least
for some records implies a larger cost again.

Johnny

On 2023-09-04, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> Linux got the support the businesses want. Linux is "good
> enough". And the average Linux using company does not care
> about how much code there is in the Linux kernel to maintain.
>

I just had a quick look around and couldn't see what the FreeBSD
version of SELinux is. I wonder how the FreeBSD people handle the
MAC problem and how functional their solution is compared to SELinux ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2023 12:12:03 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2023-09-04, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Linux got the support the businesses want. Linux is "good enough". And
>> the average Linux using company does not care about how much code there
>> is in the Linux kernel to maintain.
>>
>>
> I just had a quick look around and couldn't see what the FreeBSD version
> of SELinux is. I wonder how the FreeBSD people handle the MAC problem
> and how functional their solution is compared to SELinux ?

Not quite sure what you mean by the 'MAC problem'; I may not be aware of
details here. But FreeBSD has MAC:

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/mac/

OTOH, OpenBSD is the security focused BSD.

On 2023-09-05, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2023 12:12:03 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> I just had a quick look around and couldn't see what the FreeBSD version
>> of SELinux is. I wonder how the FreeBSD people handle the MAC problem
>> and how functional their solution is compared to SELinux ?
>
> Not quite sure what you mean by the 'MAC problem'; I may not be aware of
> details here. But FreeBSD has MAC:
>
> https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/mac/
>

In this context, it simply means the ability to support MAC security,
_including_ the ability to help keep a successful compromise contained,
which is what SELinux offers.

Notice the use of the word "help" above. As with all things, each layer
of security is just one more layer to be overcome and nothing more.

With SELinux, for example, httpd can be part of a policy that says it
is only allowed to access certain TCP ports and all other access attempts
will be refused by SELinux.

That way, if httpd gets compromised, then the compromised code is
also denied access.

Looking through the documentation you referenced, it looks like the
closest is mac_portacl, but that is based on UIDs/GIDs instead of
context labels.

This is an example from the RHEL documentation of how you allow httpd
access to a non-standard port when using SELinux:

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/selinux_users_and_administrators_guide/chap-managing_confined_services-the_apache_http_server#sect-Managing_Confined_Services-The_Apache_HTTP_Server-The_Apache_HTTP_Server_and_SELinux

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2023-09-05 17:56:40 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> In this context, it simply means the ability to support MAC security,
> _including_ the ability to help keep a successful compromise contained,
> which is what SELinux offers.

OpenVMS SEVMS-style and MLS-style mandatory access controls are
somewhere between exceedingly difficult to administer and to use, and
approximately useless. Bell-LaPadula-style MAC works well for its
target of 1990s-era US Department of Defense and related app designs
and server installations. US DoD itself largely avoided adopting MAC
and MLS and went heavily to System High designs, too. Bell-LaPadula
security usefulness for newer applications and environments and
expectations? Not so much. This having spent time working on and using
SEVMS.

Somewhat newer than MAC and MLS are jails (and sandboxes and ilk).
These are usually based on mandatory access controls mechanisms, though
are vastly more usable and adoptable than are traditional MAC or MLS.

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/jails/

Preferably that jail-related work all tied into the app installation
tooling, to ease the load on the system administrators. Unfortunately
for that preference, PCSI and related tooling, and the most recent
major security enhancements work from OpenVMS V6.0 are all from well
before Y2K, and have... not kept up with competing expectations.

VSI seems unlikely to overhaul the existing OpenVMS security anytime
soon. At most, I'd expect to see VSI add a mechanism akin to pledge(2).
Maybe with unveil(2) added.

What's pledge(2)? Presentation by Theo de Raadt on pledge(2):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7S1eqKsFk

I don't foresee speedy developer adoption of pledge(2) on OpenVMS,
assuming that API was even added.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

In article <ud4up3$1hjqq$1@dont-email.me>, chrisq <devzero@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
>desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
>environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
>which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
>right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
>remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
>is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.
>It's what happens when good technical projects get corrupted by big
>business politics, which are rarely compatable...

This is less the case than it used to be. We have a generation or two of
computer people who grew up in a world where they could never see inside
the box and who expect not to be able to do so. This is kind of disturbing
if you ask me, but there are a lot of smart younger people who just don't
know that transparency is even possible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 06/09/2023 23:04, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <ud4up3$1hjqq$1@dont-email.me>, chrisq <devzero@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not just that, but tech users expect easiiy viewed transparency from
>> desktop right down to bare metal, and the ability to customise that
>> environment. Far easier to do that with FreeBSD, than with Linux,
>> which becomes ever more complex and opaque. systemd tentacles extend
>> right through the system. crossing boundaries between what should
>> remain encapsulated and abstracted system components. So yes, Linux
>> is dead here for serious work, so long as they continue on that path.
>> It's what happens when good technical projects get corrupted by big
>> business politics, which are rarely compatable...
>
> This is less the case than it used to be. We have a generation or two of
> computer people who grew up in a world where they could never see inside
> the box and who expect not to be able to do so. This is kind of disturbing
> if you ask me, but there are a lot of smart younger people who just don't
> know that transparency is even possible.
> --scott
>

But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
with a box!

--
Chris

On 2023-09-06, Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>
> But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
> with a box!
>

Yes, but what are they doing with them ?

Quite a bit of the time it appears to be doing clever things with
user-mode applications that already exist.

At one end, I can write bare-metal startup code and hence understand
how computers work when you have no software layers between you and the
hardware.

At the other end, I can write business and webserver applications.

I can also do the full range of intermediate stuff including writing
device drivers, and system-level programming in general.

Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 9/7/2023 8:38 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-06, Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
>> with a box!
>>
>
> Yes, but what are they doing with them ?
>
> Quite a bit of the time it appears to be doing clever things with
> user-mode applications that already exist.
>
> At one end, I can write bare-metal startup code and hence understand
> how computers work when you have no software layers between you and the
> hardware.
>
> At the other end, I can write business and webserver applications.
>
> I can also do the full range of intermediate stuff including writing
> device drivers, and system-level programming in general.
>
> Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
> stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).
>
> Simon.
>

My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real programmer"
since I didn't know or use PHP. Guy didn't even know what assembly language
was. It's actually a bit scary.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 07/09/2023 13:38, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-06, Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
>> with a box!
>>
>
> Yes, but what are they doing with them ?
>
> Quite a bit of the time it appears to be doing clever things with
> user-mode applications that already exist.
>
> At one end, I can write bare-metal startup code and hence understand
> how computers work when you have no software layers between you and the
> hardware.
>
> At the other end, I can write business and webserver applications.
>
> I can also do the full range of intermediate stuff including writing
> device drivers, and system-level programming in general.
>
> Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
> stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).
>
> Simon.
>

They are doing what the BBC computer did ago - getting youngsters
interested in computing in general, and at a hardware level. Also
writing and understanding code.

Something that has been missing for a while and better than so called IT
classes just teaching basic use of MS products

--
Chris

On Thu, 2023-09-07 at 09:18 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
>
> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know
> what assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.

We're hurtling head-on into the era of the "Idiocracies". THey made a
film about it.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 8:38 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
>> stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).
>
> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.

Given that PHP is one of those languages intended to be
easy to learn for non-programmers, then his logic is
flawed in more than one way.

Arne

Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>On 06/09/2023 23:04, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> This is less the case than it used to be. We have a generation or two of
>> computer people who grew up in a world where they could never see inside
>> the box and who expect not to be able to do so. This is kind of disturbing
>> if you ask me, but there are a lot of smart younger people who just don't
>> know that transparency is even possible.
>
>But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
>with a box!

No box, but a giant heavyweight operating system, a processor with cache
prefetching and a memory buss slower than the cpu cycle time... there is
a whole lot of stuff going on with that thing. It's more or less comparable
to the computer my college had when I was an undergrad.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 8:38 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2023-09-06, Chris Townley <news@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
>>> with a box!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but what are they doing with them ?
>>
>> Quite a bit of the time it appears to be doing clever things with
>> user-mode applications that already exist.
>>
>> At one end, I can write bare-metal startup code and hence understand
>> how computers work when you have no software layers between you and the
>> hardware.
>>
>> At the other end, I can write business and webserver applications.
>>
>> I can also do the full range of intermediate stuff including writing
>> device drivers, and system-level programming in general.
>>
>> Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
>> stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.
>

I'm a real programmer. I know PHP and that's why I don't use it.

bill

In article <km0l0iF8emlU3@mid.individual.net>,
bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>[snip]
>> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
>> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
>> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.
>>
>
>I'm a real programmer. I know PHP and that's why I don't use it.

This seems apropos:
https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

- Dan C.

On 9/8/2023 10:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <km0l0iF8emlU3@mid.individual.net>,
> bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
>>> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
>>> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.
>>>
>>
>> I'm a real programmer. I know PHP and that's why I don't use it.
>
> This seems apropos:
> https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>

That was good. Even some stuff in there I didn't already know about.
But my biggest argument was how it works so very hard to make security
in the environment it is most used (the web) totally nonexistent.

bill

On 2023-09-08, bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/2023 10:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <km0l0iF8emlU3@mid.individual.net>,
>> bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
>>>> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
>>>> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a real programmer. I know PHP and that's why I don't use it.
>>
>> This seems apropos:
>> https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>>
>
> That was good. Even some stuff in there I didn't already know about.
> But my biggest argument was how it works so very hard to make security
> in the environment it is most used (the web) totally nonexistent.
>

Unfortunately, I _do_ have to use PHP sometimes.

It didn't take me long to establish some solid rules, such as strict
comparisons at _all_ times, and to use a monitor library I wrote that
has the allowed error level turned all the way down so that things
which PHP normally allows through generate an error instead.

|PHP is built to keep chugging along at all costs. When faced with either
|doing something nonsensical or aborting with an error, it will do something
|nonsensical. Anything is better than nothing.

It is a horrible, horrible, language that like Javascript has been
turned from something used for writing little scripts into something
used to write mission-critical and highly sensitive applications,
which neither of them are suitable for.

From that page:

|PHP is built to keep chugging along at all costs. When faced with either
|doing something nonsensical or aborting with an error, it will do something
|nonsensical. Anything is better than nothing.

That sums up the language perfectly (and the same mindset is equally true
for Javascript in IMHO). They were both designed for quick hacks, not for
serious mission-critical applications.

And don't get me started on the fact that server-side Javascript is
actually a thing...

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 9/8/2023 2:05 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-08, bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/8/2023 10:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <km0l0iF8emlU3@mid.individual.net>,
>>> bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2023 9:18 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> My moment of enlightenment was the day I was told I wasn't a "real
>>>>> programmer" since I didn't know or use PHP.  Guy didn't even know what
>>>>> assembly language was.  It's actually a bit scary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm a real programmer. I know PHP and that's why I don't use it.
>>>
>>> This seems apropos:
>>> https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>>>
>>
>> That was good. Even some stuff in there I didn't already know about.
>> But my biggest argument was how it works so very hard to make security
>> in the environment it is most used (the web) totally nonexistent.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I _do_ have to use PHP sometimes.
>
> It didn't take me long to establish some solid rules, such as strict
> comparisons at _all_ times, and to use a monitor library I wrote that
> has the allowed error level turned all the way down so that things
> which PHP normally allows through generate an error instead.

I had to support it at the University because we had a professor
who insisted on teaching it, using it and making his students use
it. No matter how many time I showed him the security holes he
just insisted I was wrong and that it be available and wide open.

>
> |PHP is built to keep chugging along at all costs. When faced with either
> |doing something nonsensical or aborting with an error, it will do something
> |nonsensical. Anything is better than nothing.
>
> It is a horrible, horrible, language that like Javascript has been
> turned from something used for writing little scripts into something
> used to write mission-critical and highly sensitive applications,
> which neither of them are suitable for.

And it is one of the most convoluted languages ever created.
We had a system to handle registration for a High School
Programming Contest run by one of the professors. It was
written as a "project" for credit by one of the students. At
one point an upgrade to PHP had been applied and the whole
thing stopped working. And neither the professor or the student
who wrote it could decipher the original code to figure out
what was wrong. After about two weeks they had it running
again but I am fairly certain the student started from scratch
and re-wrote the whole thing.

They wouldn't use it but within 24 hours I had come up with a
replacement. Two actually. One in C-Shell and one in COBOL.

>bill

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:38:21 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-06, Chris Townley <ne...@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > But plenty of youngsters play with Raspberry Pis - they don't even come
> > with a box!
> >
> Yes, but what are they doing with them ?
>
> Quite a bit of the time it appears to be doing clever things with
> user-mode applications that already exist.
>
> At one end, I can write bare-metal startup code and hence understand
> how computers work when you have no software layers between you and the
> hardware.
>
> At the other end, I can write business and webserver applications.
>
> I can also do the full range of intermediate stuff including writing
> device drivers, and system-level programming in general.
>
> Like Scott, I get the feeling that understanding the system-level
> stuff isn't as common any more (sadly).
> Simon.
>
> --
> Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Simon,

Sadly true. It profoundly unsettling to see the lack of underlying knowledge. Simple foundational knowledge about CPUs, memory, mass storage, networks, operating systems, and other areas is lacking. Often the common thread is ubiquity: Since all of the infrastructure has become commonplace, the everyday need for understanding has become background.

However, in the end, everything in computing must tie back to the fundamentals. No amount of high-level abstraction can remove the realities of the foundational. One cannot take away the foundation by adding levels of abstraction and, in effect, obfuscation.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com