The UNIX way

What's so cool about the UNIX philosophy? What would a heavy UNIX philosophy operating system look like? What is the most heavy UNIX philosophy operating system out there at the moment, besides UNIX itself?

>>37,39
You're missing the point. It's not just the GNU project that has done this. The symptom of bloating shell utilities with options instead of layering scripts over them dates back to BSD.

The underlying disease is the (Bourne) shell - it just sucks so badly that it was easier for the feature implementers to extend the C code of the tools themselves. Think about that - what is the point of even having a shell language if it is harder to use than a systems language?

CAT -V CONSIDERED HARMFUL

>>39
The thing about not following the Unix philosophy is that you never realise how good of an idea it is until you do, and then it's too late and the best you can hope for is to shoehorn it back in one shitty piece at a time. Just look at how Windows has evolved since the early '90s.
This is also why I wish Lennart Poettering would get hit by a car.

>>43
Who is Lennart Poettering and why is he considered a harmful individual?

>>43
Windows has multiuser support, a POSIX subsystem, and PowerShell now.

UNIX has no advantages over Windows any more.

>>45
The POSIX subsystem only supports POSIX.1 and has been deprecated since Windows XP. Interix is only available on the most expensive Windows distros, and is badly broken to boot.
Powershell is a bad joke.

Windows has _NSAKEY.

Enjoy allowing pigs to browse your hard drive, Windows-using scum.

>>47
wat do u fear if u have nuthing 2 hide?? ^^

>>46
POSIX.1
aka the only user-relevant part of the POSIX standard that matters.

Are you the same sort of fag that complains because Visual C++ doesn't support C99?

>>47
implying linux and bsd dont have backdoors..

>>50
le implyin/g/ XDDDD

>>51
lel

>>50
implying one can exploit backdoors in any current Linux or BSD system.

$ ls /usr/bin/ -1 | wc -l
1688

>>53
lel, /g/roski, truly e/g/in post, i loved your use of le /g/ memes

>>49
Someone doesn't actually know what POSIX.1 is.
Of the pre-1997 standards, most users would only really care about POSIX.2. Developers would care about POSIX.1b and especially POSIX.1c at least as much as about POSIX.1.

>>44
This is so hard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering

>>48
Because Windows and the NSA have abused their power on several times, even today. Did you read about that recent DNS rootworm? Yeah, Windows made for NSA testing.

>>49
¬_¬, still stuck in 2003?

>>50
I read FreeBSD source code. No backdoors, only security holes programs have:
http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/
If you find one, you are welcome to report it:
http://www.freebsd.org/security/

>>57
even openbsd has backdoors, what makes you think freebsd doesnt? and what can you do with your supersecure bsd systems anyway?

>>58
Pretty lazy troll. At least try to make it look like you know more about the situation than just the names of two operating systems.

>>57 no i haven't heard of that one..

would be nice to get the sauce, and spice it up though ^^ send it back at nasa xD...

>>57 is this it?

 > “They didn’t hack Microsoft, no-one has broken into Microsoft, but by repurposing the certificate and modifying it with unknown hash collision technologies, and with the power of a supercomputer, they were able to start signing any program they wanted as if it was from Microsoft. If you combine that with the mechanism they were using to spoof MS Update server they had the crown jewels,” Hypponen said.

http://exaltedtruth.com/category/science-technology/page/8/
'Creating Bogus Enemies to Justify Internet Control: CIA, NSA “most probably” Infiltrated Microsoft to Write Malware'

Well shit, if the NSA can't even trust me, who can they trust? And if they can't trust anyone, doesn't that just mean that they simply aren't trustworthy themselves..? Why else trust no-one..?
It would be easy to prove, in a sense, all they'd have to do is de-classify everything... But that is asking the impossible, in another sense, Because What ?! They Are Not Trustworthy... And the Truth would only prove that a thousand times over..

You wish for me to trust you, but how can I, knowing you aren't worthy to begin with..?

What were you expecting to find..? I am not you? Suprise! ^^

>>57
A backdoor isn't going to be as obvious as if (is_fbi == TRUE) { ... They are usually intentional ``bugs'', e.g. an intentional overflow exploit that allows the user to run malicious code.
You can't just ``read the source code'' and infer these things. The only effective method is auditing. Hence all the drama with OpenBSD:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462

>>64
That's why they push languages like C and C++. If we all used a type-safe language like Haskell or Algol 68, there would be full memory protection with no need for separate address spaces. Buffer overflows would be impossible.

>>65
Haskell is fucking shit.

>>66
Cool story bro

As of 2012, 80% of the Tor Project's $2M annual budget comes from the United States government

broken endpoint security

problem?

>>60
You are welcome to take a look:
svn+ssh://svn.freebsd.org/base/head
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/

>>61
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/07/06/fbi-issues-dns-changer-malware-warning/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403364,00.asp
http://techland.time.com/2012/04/23/dnschanger-fbi-warns-infected-computers-will-lose-web-email-access-in-july/
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/dnschanger-malware-fbi-warning/45780/
https://forms.fbi.gov/check-to-see-if-your-computer-is-using-rogue-DNS

>>64
Sir, I have not only read the source code, I tested on multiple standards I am required to do as my job, and still have not found one on a vanilla installation of FreeBSD. And I am not talking about the obvious holes that are on inetd and BIND (programs) on every OS, including the ones ported on Freebsd.

The drama on OpenBSD was from non-auditors, and the closest I can find, again are the obvious BIND security hole, esp. inetd.. You are welcome to make your own versions although, or use others than the default.  We make our renditions of the defaults.

>>65
You are correct sir. We use chicken-scheme to type check our C code, and the binaries as well. We must compile back to C to maintain the source portable enough for multiple servers with different architectures. We also have a legacy standard we have to follow.

>>68
Small donations from and interested party does not mean the project/product has vulnerabilities. You have the freedom to review the code and audit it.

>>69

Sir, I have not only read the source code, I tested on multiple standards I am required to do as my job, and still have not found one on a vanilla installation of FreeBSD.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it? The word of an Anonymous poster on a shii^tchan BBS? Your words don't have any more weight than the ones who say that there are backdoors. The only way to check is to read the source yourself.

I'm not the person you were talking to, as this is my first post in this thread, but please refrain from assuming that we're all going to believe you, as opposed to just thinking that you're full of shit. I sincerely doubt you've read through the entire FreeBSD source tree.

>>70
No, I am telling you to read and audit any code yourself. I do for a living. I do not care if believe me. Just be proactive with what do, that is all.