There is a video on YouTube by an individual that identifies himself as YouTux and he speaks about how the original Unix was simple, and actually stuck to writing software that provided something smaller at a time when mainframe systems dominated. Part of the reason that was done was because there was a limited research budget for hardware, and they just happened to have an inexpensive Digital Equipment Corporation device “laying around”.
Being “long haired wizards” who marched to their own drumbeat, wanted to create something different and see what they could do with it, Unix really did things efficiently. Though the antiX Linux I use these days is lean in comparison to other Linux alternatives, compared to the first Unix system I ever used, even it is a beast, one reason why the founder of antiX Linux works SO hard to do things different than the others (and the fact that he has an old system himself).
Here is what the author has to say about the video in the comments below the YouTube video:
“The UNIX philosophy is often treated as a myth, a vague idea people use to judge software.
In this video, we go back to its origins, its real principles, and its deeper meaning, to understand what UNIX truly is, why it shaped modern computing, and why its ideas still matter today.”
Surely, over-complication is established phenomenon nowadays.
And I’m afraid that everything we can do is to helplessly stare at the wheel of history moving in probably not the best possible direction.
Yes if you think Linux is over complicated take a look at Windows. LOL
I have never used Apple, which is based on Unix>BSD. It that over complicated or still simple? What I don’t like is what most people seem to want. An OS that does everything for them, no thinking, no tinkering. I find it everything tech going more hidden and locked down.
I remember when web browsers left you look at your cookies and delete the ones you wanted and keep the ones you wanted. That’s been gone for quite a while now.
I’m that way too. What I’m looking for is hardly ever the default, but I’m okay with that, because it’s exactly as you say: the newbie or person that uses a computer because they have to has no idea how to customize anything, so I’m happy to allow things to be “simple” for them; I can do what I want whenever and wherever I want. It’s the systems that do not allow me that flexibility that I avoid.
I’m with you on this too, though I’ve managed to get my hands on just a few Apple systems for brief periods of time. From my various trips on airplanes I can see that Apple laptops really have very clear, excellent displays capable of handling either text or graphics. Apple retains consistency by insisting on complete control of anything that interacts with their software, so in that sense it’s “quality”, but it’s far more restrictive than any Windows-based system, despite having a Unix-like BSD kernel and core. I’ve never become attached to it; in return for that experience the price/performance ratio is beyond my desired price point.
