“You can’t have programs that do multiple things! Any program that is multi-use is ebil. Standardized syntax and functionality between different related systems? NO! PROGRAM DO ONE THING!”
A lot of this is also a post-hoc justification, UNIX didn’t get shared libraries until some point in the 80s (Can’t find an exact year), so before that your options were to either statically compile the needed functionality into your program or keep it as an entirely separate program and call out to that.
It’s a perfect mix, in a time where enterprise storage was measured in single digit megabytes, and the only efficient way to created shared functionality was via separate programs, and you’ve got an OS that happens to have “easily pass data between programs” as a core paradigm.
And now people invoke it to attack an init program for also monitoring the programs it starts and not just spawning them.
“You can’t have programs that do multiple things! Any program that is multi-use is ebil. Standardized syntax and functionality between different related systems? NO! PROGRAM DO ONE THING!”
A lot of this is also a post-hoc justification, UNIX didn’t get shared libraries until some point in the 80s (Can’t find an exact year), so before that your options were to either statically compile the needed functionality into your program or keep it as an entirely separate program and call out to that.
It’s a perfect mix, in a time where enterprise storage was measured in single digit megabytes, and the only efficient way to created shared functionality was via separate programs, and you’ve got an OS that happens to have “easily pass data between programs” as a core paradigm.
And now people invoke it to attack an init program for also monitoring the programs it starts and not just spawning them.
even when said “one program” is actually 69 (nice) different binaries
Wait until these people find out that Linux is monolithic