[PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

Paul Heinlein heinlein at madboa.com
Thu Sep 13 16:40:42 UTC 2018


On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Tyrell Jentink wrote:

> I'm a young'n; I don't remember 4.4BSD or Research UNIX... I also 
> come to Linux from an IT background, not a Computer Science 
> background, and maybe I lack a certain historical perspective as a 
> consequence.
>
> I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, 
> because of it's monolithic kernel codebase:
>
> [.... much snippage ....]
>
> Anyone else playing with any of these "next generation" operating 
> systems?

I haven't been around as some on this list, but here are my brief 
observations. (Well, they were brief -- until I actually starting 
writing them.)

1. Follow the work first, technology second.

The most important factor in any technological deployment is the work 
it allows us to achieve and, more pointedly, to monetize.

It's true that new technology can open new workflows (read: new 
business opportunities), but in general that's a secondary concern for 
all but the most disruptive of technologies.

2. Security is a trade-off, not an absolute

Yes, Linux has and will always have insecurities. As long as an OS has 
a way to elevate permissions (root account, sudo, etc) and people use 
those elevated permissions, insecurity will be an issue. As long as 
people are imperfect, security will not be an absolute; it will be an 
exercise in seeing how many roadblocks you can erect to keep people 
from crime or carelessness.

Again, follow the work not the tech. If someone can achieve clearly 
better work (the shorthand for which is often but not always "make 
more money") deploying the "more secure" OS, then the technology 
becomes interesting. Just remember all the costs involved in deploying 
a new platform: porting userspace applications; training 
administrators, developers, and users; paying for deep support.

3. People are social creatures

Despite thousands of years devising ethical and educational standards, 
people still tend to follow the crowd in most areas of their lives 
rather than strike off by themselves toward excellence.

This has upsides: we don't have to investigate every choice we face 
from the ground up, which would exhaust even the hardest-striving 
among us. And downsides: it's easy to achieve mediocrity and only 
slightly less easy to follow the crowd to evil (see: genocide, 
rioting, etc).

So even a compelling vision of technical excellence will get you 
nowhere without a compelling human story behind it.

4. It's still worth it

Achieving technical excellence may still be worth it to you. I don't 
intend the foregoing points to invoke cynicism. Strike out on your 
own! Excellence is very difficult, but worthwhile. On rare occasions, 
it changes society.

But do so with your eyes open. It's got to be worth it to you, on your 
own and without social and financial support. People may follow you, 
but they most likely won't. Only you know whether the likelihood of 
solitude in your endeavor is an obstacle you're willing to face.

-- 
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W


More information about the PLUG mailing list