Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:09:05 -0600 From: markham breitbach <markham@ssimicro.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [OT] Why did "enterprise" crap seem to win? (re: Virtualization, Java, Microsoft, Outsourcing, etc.)... Message-ID: <9fcd3df3-6479-0e0b-5c24-65fdc2495c18@ssimicro.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHieY7RLYQZU0enKe9OF0Ruw2A7vRi59rkoBpvGf2aLngkFw_g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHieY7RLYQZU0enKe9OF0Ruw2A7vRi59rkoBpvGf2aLngkFw_g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Funny that this came up on the list the same day that I came across this article as well. https://hackaday.com/2017/10/02/books-you-should-read-feynmans-appendix-to-the-challenger-disaster-report/ There's definitely a parallel, and some good lessons there. -M On 2017-10-04 8:10 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > ... or did they? > > Hi all, > > You may be asking why would I post such a question (mostly rant) here. > The reason is because I was curious at the reaction to this thread: > https://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=117621+0+archive/2017/freebsd-questions/20170820.freebsd-questions > > It seems that people who use and support FreeBSD have a similar > mindset in that we think that the Unix model is mostly good, and are > many time baffled with the direction the "industry" takes, for the > most part. So what better outlet to post this rant ;-) So pls. take > this thread just a food for thought: > > On operating systems and languages > --------------------------------------------------- > > Why did C++ and Java seem win over C and shared object libraries? > > In the Unix model the general philosophy is precisely that is made up > of tiny little things that do one thing really, really well and are > able to operate with other tiny things by means of a common protocol > such as pipes etc. > > What more encapsulation than shared objects, header files, and C > structs? if you want higher level there is for example, Perl with an > elegant XS interface to C which can in turn leverage all the > underlying O/S. Not only that, Perl (amongst other great "scripting" > langs) is multi-paradigm allowing you write software to tackle > problems in different ways, which are much more clearer than trying to > stick a square peg in a round hole approach of single paradigm > languages such as Java. > > And only after 30 years or so, do you start seeing some functional > paradigms come to Java and new languages over the JVM such as Scala. > When in fact these things have been with us for ages since Scheme, > Perl, etc. ? and these integrate beautifully with the underlying O/S. > Why dis the industry degrade the languages as "scripting languages" > when in fact this is precisely what you want: simplicity, elegance and > tight integration to the O/S! > > So why did the Java Virtual Machine concept win, instead of leveraging > the underlying O/S ? Was portability the only mermaid song ? or was it > the promise of a language to protect us from the mediocre programmer ? > What is the point of portability if it doesn't really leverage the > underlying O/S? I personally think portability is not only a myth > (i.e. Java is not really portable as people may think) and it's > actually pretty stupid and it's actually what you DON'T want. > > What you really want IMHO is a fined-tuned architecture that not only > plays well with the underlying O/S but that actually leverages the > O/S, which makes it NOT portable by definition. Why do we want > portability in the first place? Does portability foster competition > and innovation or just makes everybody mediocre at best? Does it > increase security or performance? NO, it's actually the total > opposite! > > Code reusability is mostly bullshit too, and what you wind up with, > AGAIN, is piles over piles of crap, wheel re-invention and duplication > of efforts. A quick look to the Java ecosystem is enough to show this > is fundamentally flawed. Even the simplest Java application winds up > bloated with megabytes (sometimes gigabytes) of crap in there that is > not doing anything but hampering performance and opening up all sorts > of security holes. The same goes for the Windows world and C++ where > it gets even worse as every application you install is able to > overwrite critical system libraries. > > On Virtualization and Outsourcing > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Why did virtualization and outsourcing (AWS) seem to win over concepts > such a chroot and FreeBSD Jails and a good old sysadmin? Why do we > really need full virtualization in the first place? Does it help in > performance or security? Does it reduce costs? On the contrary it does > neither, at least IMHO. > > If you need to "slice" your hardware, e.g. : to avoid contamination of > the base system, to be able to run several environments in a single > machine, for prototyping, etc. the concept of a container such as > FreeBSD Jails is more than enough, IMO. When you add things like > EzJail on top, why would you need more than that? > > HTF did we get such aberrations as Docker on an already virtualized > environment such as AWS??? I mean WTF is that? really? Why pile up all > those layers of shit to get what you could get with a real hardware > with FreeBSD and EzJail ? > > I write these reflections at a time when all these security breaches > such as Yahoo's 3 billion account breach and Equifax 145 million and > much more serious breach are happening and the situation will only get > worse because of all the piles, over piles and piles of shit the most > companies run on. > > So how did we get here? Why does industry insist on complicating stuff > instead of a complete back to basics approach? Why is the answer to > these problems is more and more outsourcing and throwing even more > piles of crap and wasting money in the hopes that will fix the > fundamentally broken systems we have in place? What we need is a > radical back to basics approach to software engineering. > > Well at least not ALL industry. I think Apple made the right choice > when they decided to embrace NeXT (which is heavily based and inspired > on FreeBSD) and Objective-C from the start, creating highly-tuned > systems that are not only NOT portable in software terms but not even > portable in hardware terms! The choice of tight integration between > hardware, O/S and application software is the way of the future, which > is actually the way of the past, invented by Unix and the original > hackers since the dawn of computing. Everything else, is just "shit". > Borrowing the late Jobs' favourite word to describe just that: shit. > > Pardon the rant and have a wonderful day.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9fcd3df3-6479-0e0b-5c24-65fdc2495c18>