Originally posted by oiaohm
View Post
Somewhere around the time Linux started to gain dominance they.. for whatever reason.. decided they no longer were or wanted to be Unix.. and I feel that is a real shame.
Specifically on ifconfig, it's a policy thing. It was broken in Linux, but instead of fixing it and maintaining consistency they replaced it. This happens SOOO often in Linux. It was broken in BSD too, did they replace it? NO. They fixed it. Why? Because they want to keep that consistency.
Changing things on your users is BAD. You have to rewrite all your documentation and your tools and for what? NIH?
It's also garbage.. compare the output on FreeBSD to Linux. What one is more readable? - Why is that? I have a guess that in Linux it was designed to be scripable.. so we are back to what one is a mess of scripts?
My point is.. You can change the underlying code without changing the commands and functions and breaking everything. (that is what FreeBSD did) This is reminiscent of Windows embrace, extend and extinguish. The extend phase. Changing things to force your way of doing stuff. By not staying consistent Linux seems to be acquiring all of the characteristics that drove people to abandon Windows for Linux in the first place.
Comment