We’ve all used UNIX or one of its derivatives. A lot of us use it for development and server applications. Quite a few of us love it. And I’m sure we’ve all got things we hate about it too. Is it time for a new Unix-Hater’s Handbook?

I have a few bones to pick:
a) Inconsistent command-line options:
Most programs use -- in front of their options. For example, mc --version. Some don’t, like dd, find, and other utilities from the Stone Age.

(backward compatibility, blah, blah, blah, it’s been several decades, blah, blah, blah)

b) Directory structure:
Yes, we’ve all heard the reasons why there’s a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, and /usr/local/*/bin, or why there are multiple library locations, or why there’s a /usr and /usr/local, etc. So what?

And then there’s the programs that think they’re somehow special so their default installation location is something like /usr/local/mysql (cough). Or libraries that think they’re special (hello, Qt, I hate you with a passion).

The directory tree is a mess, no matter what the reasons given.

c) Libraries and binaries:
Related to the above, all the binaries and libraries are thrown into a huge pile. Take a look in /usr/lib. Do you know what every library in there does? What its dependencies are? And what about /usr/bin? Don’t forget /usr/local/lib and bin too! And what happens if you have different versions of a library in /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib? Fun!

Yes, in this era of shared libraries and commands accessible from everywhere (ie, ye olde PATH), that’s one solution. Yet, while DOS didn't have shared libraries, its layout was a whole lot simpler. Want to install a program? Put it in its own directory. Want to remove it? Delete directory.

It's not that hard to devise a solution that combines simplicity and consistency with shared libraries and programs. Where is it?

d) The shell:
Zsh/BASH/tcsh, etc, are all a lot better than the windows world. On the other hand, shell scripting is amazingly ugly. Why isn't the shell more extensible? Perl may not be an ideal language, but the perl shells I've seen were a lot saner when it came to making shell scripts. Oh, sh and friends also have a convoluted configuration system.

e) Configuration:
I love doing a ls -la of my homedir. ~90% of the crap I see there are dot files. It’s like every program thinks it has a god-given right to throw a file in there.

And then there are the ones that don’t put a dot file. Nor a dot dir. Nope, they put a _normal_directory there (hello GNUstep, zinf). So now not only is my –la listing full of junk, normal listings are too. Thanks guys.

Why can't they standardize on something like ~/.config/* ? At least then there'd be only one uninteresting entry clogging up the file listing. It’s not that hard to cd .config to get at my settings.

f) Init system:
So how do you like your poison? BSD or SysV? Do they treat you well at night too? Or are you one of the crack-heads who made your own custom init system that uses a makefile so you can parallelize you boot? That makefile’s pretty brittle, huh?

People are having flamewars and religious arguments over BSD and SysV, but they simply both suck (although SysV sucks more, hah!). Maybe Apple is right? I don’t know much about initd, but Apple has a point.

g) Editors:
The major editors are all terrible. Emacs is a monstrosity that required bizarre key-combinations. Vi has that horrible dual-mode (and also has byzantine sequences of keys). I prefer vi myself, and I know vim can remove the dual-mode, but why aren’t there any sane and powerful default editors out there?

h) Library, library, on the wall...:
Since I’m one of the strange people in this world who still downloads source tarball and compiles, I’ve noticed an odd trend: more and more programs are making useless libraries. The developers think it’d be brilliant to put all functionality in the library, and leave some tiny stub program in the binaries.

Of course, nobody ever uses that library other than the original proggie. So why did they make a library in the first place? You’re writing a program, not a library.

Linux-land, at least, has gone library mad. They make and use libraries like it’s air. Then there are the fools who make major pieces of software that require either KDE or Gnome to be installed. And eventually we end up with several pieces of software that use either.

Nah, we’re not using GTK or QT, we’re going all the way, baby!

Wait, I’m running two desktop environments now? At the same time? WHY?!

i) ZOMG FREEDOM!
Does h) sound familiar? Do you often hear the refrain, “but it’s freedom to do and use whatever you want! Evolution! Yayayayay lololol!”

Guess what? As a user I don’t give two hoots about your freedom. I want a system that works, and isn’t held together by cruft and duct-tape.

Guess what? As a developer I don’t care about your fucking freedom either. I want a single API to target (and isn’t held together by cruft and duct-tape)!

Why do I have to use an additional abstraction layer so I’ll be able to use either QT or GTK depending on what’s available?! And what’s the whole deal with autoconf?

If you had a free hand, what would you wish was changed? Do you disagree with me? Flame away and show me where I’m wrong.