[Raion]

The biggest issue with MAC frameworks is the persistent fight that I end up having from the computer/OS.

"Open the pod bay doors HAL"

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that."

That sort of thing infuriates me.

As for firewalls, it's more of the way in which it's designed. PF, NPF, IPFW and IPFilter are fine. It's iptables, nftables and the other Linux firewalls that come after and before (like ipchains) that are the biggest issue. Obtuse syntax, bad code designs etc. Web application firewalls, like ModSecurity, are even worse because it's the mandatory access ideas on top of "Fuck you. I know better than you the user or you the admin!". It's ridiculous. Yes, corporations have different needs than someone like myself. But that doesn't excuse the obtuseness and often the mandatory aspects of well, these pieces of shit.

I also contend that if BSD was dominant, that the BSDisms that developed wouldn't be the same as what we see today. There's a different design philosophy and we would probably see far more proprietary forks of BSD that in lieu of these gimped Linux distros, would probably be niche and purpose built, and likely don't share binary or software compatibility except to a basic degree. BSD and System V both have always had this tendency to fork and make new versions for various purposes. Though, I get the idea you're trying to put across. The biggest issue is diversity for me. it doesn't matter how many independent projects out there if they all are dependent on a certain set of tools.

[sgt_barnes]

Linux was great in the late nineties, when I was at univesrity and chronically underfunded. I could invest all the money in hardware and still get a decent OS, with preemtive multitasking, compilers, a graphical user interface, OpenGL, whatever. I would never have been able to pull all that stuff with Windows NT, as the software would have cost a fortune (I got a decent install of NT later, when my university became part of the MS campus licensing program, which was a good thing by itself, because now I could play Half Life on the big box).

It was even still great in the internet heydays of the 200x years, when one could get an ISP grade mailserver just by renting a box in a server shack for 30$/year and install postfix and courier.

They lost me when all those endless discussions about upstart vs systemd started, and I got turned off completely when that systemd crap finally made its way into the distros. Before that, I could update my debian to a new release with "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade;", and it worked every time, flawlessly. After systemd, I had to fix the fallout of that operation for weeks. There were services that would only start when you copied the startup script into root's home dir! And if you think such a shit will be patched, think again, because even months later, the situation didn't change! I mean, what was wrong with init.d, to begin with? Everybody understood what was going on, and nobody needed more! Did any Ubuntu user ever object to that mechanism, which he probably never realized it was there? Which the installer took care of, and you never had to touch it again?

Sounds reminiscent of Wayland? Yeah, that is another symptom of the same illness.

I get the feeling that there were a lot of linux kernel devs in the '0x years that grew up using Windows 95, and consequently thought that it was meant to be like that, some monster kernel that manages everything.