I’m curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I’m afraid that at some point, we’ll realize there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite.
Are there any instances of this happening? Where something is designed with a flaw that doesn’t get realized until much later, necessitating scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch?
The entire thing. It needs to be completely rewritten in rust, complete with unit tests and Miri in CI, and converted to a high performance microkernel. Everything evolves into a crab /s
I laughed waay too hard at this.
A PM said something similar earlier this week during a performance meeting: “I heard rust was fast. Maybe we should rewrite the software in that?”
They must have been a former Duke Nukem Forever project manager
Why not Ironclad( written in Ada) ? https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
Starting anything from scratch is a huge risk these days. At best you’ll have something like the python 2 -> 3
rewriteoverhaul (leaving scraps of legacy code all over the place), at worst you’ll have something like gnome/kde (where the community schisms rather than adopting a new standard). I would say that most of the time, there are only two ways to get a new standard to reach mass adoption.-
Retrofit everything. Extend old APIs where possible. Build your new layer on top of https, or javascript, or ascii, or something else that already has widespread adoption. Make a clear upgrade path for old users, but maintain compatibility for as long as possible.
-
Buy 99% of the market and declare yourself king (cough cough chromium).
Python 3 wasn’t a rewrite, it just broke compatibility with Python 2.
In a good way. Using a non-verified bytes type for strings was such a giant source of bugs. Text is complicated and pretending it isn’t won’t get you far.
-
Maybe not exaclly Linux, sorry for that, but it was first thing that get to my mind.
Web browsers really should be rewritten, be more modular and easier to modify. Web was supposed to be bulletproof and work even if some features are not present, but all websites are now based on assumptions all browsers have 99% of Chromium features implemented and won’t work in any browser written from scratch now.The same guys who create Chrome have stuffed the web standards with needlessly bloated fluff that makes it nearly impossible for anyone else to implement it. If alternative browsers have to be a thing again, we need a new standard, or at least the current standard with significantly large portions removed.
we need to just rebuild the web, built on a decentralized LoRa or such mesh network.
WWW ≠ Internet.
Internet has some things to be fixed too (https://secushare.org/broken-internet), but is not as doomed as the web.
That sounds like amp, no thanks.
Most of the standards themselves aren’t the problem, we just shouldn’t have to rely so badly on them that a site immediately is dead if a small item is not available
Agreed. I mean, metadata should be protocol stuff, not document stuff. And rendering (font size etc) should be user side, not developer side. Browser should be modular, not a monolith. Creating a webpage should be easy again.
We haven’t rewritten the firewall code lately, right? checks Oh, it looks like we have. Now it’s nftables.
I learned ipfirewall, then ipchains, then iptables came along, and I was like, oh hell no, not again. At that point I found software to set up the firewall for me.
Damn, you’re old. iptables came out in 1998. That’s what I learned in (and I still don’t fully understand it).
I was just thinking that iptables lasted a good 20 years. Over twice that of ipchains. Was it good enough or did it just have too much inertia?
Nf is probably a welcome improvement in any case.
UFW → nftables/iptables. Never worry about chains again
GUI toolkits like Qt and Gtk. I can’t tell you how to do it better, but something is definitely wrong with the standard class hierarchy framework model these things adhere to. Someday someone will figure out a better way to write GUIs (or maybe that already exists and I’m unaware) and that new approach will take over eventually, and all the GUI toolkits will have to be scrapped or rewritten completely.
Idk man, I’ve used a lot of UI toolkits, and I don’t really see anything wrong with GTK (though they do basically rewrite it from scratch every few years it seems…)
The only thing that comes to mind is the React-ish world of UI systems, where model-view-controller patterns are more obvious to use. I.e. a concept of state where the UI automatically re-renders based on the data backing it
But generally, GTK is a joy, and imo the world of HTML has long been trying to catch up to it. It’s only kinda recently that we got flexbox, and that was always how GTK layouts were. The tooling, design guidelines, and visual editors have been great for a long time
Newer toolkits all seem to be going immediate mode. Which I kind of hate as an idea personally.
er, do you have an example. This is not a trend I was aware of
Desktop apps nowadays are mostly written in HTML with Electron anyway.
Which - in my considered opinion - makes them so much worse.
Is it because writing native UI on all current systems I’m aware of is still worse than in the times of NeXTStep with Interface Builder, Objective C, and their class libraries?
And/or is it because it allows (perceived) lower-cost “web developers” to be tasked with “native” client UI?
Probably mainly a matter of saving costs, you get a web interface and a standalone app from one codebase.
deleted by creator
and all the GUI toolkits will have to be scrapped or rewritten completely
Dillo is the only tool i know still using FLTK.
Some form of stable, modernized bluetooth stack would be nice. Every other bluetooth update breaks at least one of my devices.
It’s actually a classic programmer move to start over again. I’ve read the book “Clean Code” and it talks about a little bit.
Appereantly it would not be the first time that the new start turns into the same mess as the old codebase it’s supposed to replace. While starting over can be tempting, refactoring is in my opinion better.
If you refactor a lot, you start thinking the same way about the new code you write. So any new code you write will probably be better and you’ll be cleaning up the old code too. If you know you have to clean up the mess anyways, better do it right the first time …
However it is not hard to imagine that some programming languages simply get too old and the application has to be rewritten in a new language to ensure continuity. So I think that happens sometimes.
Yeah, this was something I recognized about myself in the first few years out of school. My brain always wanted to say “all of this is a mess, let’s just delete it all and start from scratch” as though that was some kind of bold/smart move.
But I now understand that it’s the mark of a talented engineer to see where we are as point A, where we want to be as point B, and be able to navigate from A to B before some deadline (and maybe you have points/deadlines C, D, E, etc.). The person who has that vision is who you want in charge.
Chesterton’s Fence is the relevant analogy: “you should never destroy a fence until you understand why it’s there in the first place.”
“you should never destroy a fence until you understand why it’s there in the first place.”
I like that; really makes me think about my time in building-games.
deleted by creator
Alsa > Pulseaudio > Pipewire
About 20 xdg-open alternatives (which is, btw, just a wrapper around gnome-open, exo-open, etc.)
My session scripts after a deep dive. Seriously, startxfce4 has workarounds from the 80ies and software rot affected formatting already.
Turnstile instead elogind (which is bound to systemd releases)
mingetty, because who uses a modem nowadays?
Pulseaudio doesn’t replace ALSA. Pulseaudio replaces esd and aRts
those last two are just made up words
All words are made up
Except naturally occurring, discovered, onomatopoeic words such as bang, boom, cuckoo, tweet, drip, splish, splash, slosh.
Linux could use a rewrite of all things related to audio from kernel to x / Wayland based audio apps.
Right, sorry.
ALSA is based
About 20 xdg-open alternatives (which is, btw, just a wrapper around gnome-open, exo-open, etc.)
I use handlr-regex, is it bad? It was the only thing I found that I could use to open certain links on certain web applications (like android does), using exo-open all links just opened on the web browser instead.
If you like it, then it’s not bad.
lol that someone already said Wayland.
Your welcome. :)
His welcome?
That’ll teach me to type when I’m mad. “You’re”. There a go.
Actually, it won’t teach me. Wayland’s mere existence will bother me till the day I die, I’m sure. Especially once it’s working well enough for me to have to adopt it. The resentment will grow.
I would say the whole set of C based assumptions underlying most modern software, specifically errors being just an integer constant that is translated into a text so it has no details about the operation tried (who tried to do what to which object and why did that fail).
You have stderr to throw errors into. And the constants are just error codes, like HTTP error codes. Without it how computer would know if the program executed correctly.
stderr is useless if the syscall already returns a single integer only because of stupid C conventions.
You throw an exception like a gentleman. But C doesn’t support them. So you need to abuse the return type to also indicate “success” as well as a potential value the caller wanted.
So you need to abuse the return type to also indicate “success” as well as a potential value the caller wanted.
You don’t need to.
Returnung structs, returning by pointer, signals, error flags, setjmp/longjmp, using cxa for exceptions(lol, now THIS is real abuse).
You mean 0 indicating success and any other value indicating some arbitrary meaning? I don’t see any problem with that.
Passing around extra error handling info for the worst case isn’t free, and the worst case doesn’t happen 99.999% of the time. No reason to spend extra cycles and memory hurting performance just to make debugging easier. That’s what debug/instrumented builds are for.
Ugh, I do not miss C…
Errors and return values are, and should be, different things. Almost every other language figured this out and handles it better than C.
It’s more of an ABI thing though, C just doesn’t have error handling.
And if you do exception handling wrong in most other languages, you hamstring your performance.
The unofficial C motto “Make it fast, who gives a shit about correctness”
Errors and return values are, and should be, different things.
That’s why errno and return value are different things.
Passing around extra error handling info for the worst case isn’t free, and the worst case doesn’t happen 99.999% of the time.
The case “I want to know why this error happened” is basically 100% of the time when an error actually happens.
And the case of “Permission denied” or similar useless nonsense without any details costing me hours of my life in debugging time that wouldn’t be necessary if it just told me permission for who to do what to which object happens quite regularly.
“0.001% of the time, I wanna know every time 👉😎👉”
Yeah, I get that. But are we talking about during development (which is why we’re choosing between C and something else)? In that case, you should be running instrumented builds, or with debug functionality enabled. I agree that most programs just fail and don’t tell you how to go about enabling debug info or anything, and that could be improved.
For the “Permission Denied” example, I also assume we’re making system calls and having them fail? In that case it seems straight forward: the user you’re running as can’t access the resource you were actively trying to access. But if we’re talking about some random log file just saying “Error: permission denied” and leaving you nothing to go on, that’s on the program dumping the error to produce more useful information.
In general, you often don’t want to leak more info than just Worked or Didn’t Work for security reasons. Or a mix of security/performance reasons (possible DOS attacks).
During development is just about the only time when that doesn’t matter because you have direct access to the source code to figure out which function failed exactly. As a sysadmin I don’t have the luxury of reproducing every issue with a debug build with some debugger running and/or print statements added to figure out where exactly that value originally came from. I really need to know why it failed the first time around.
Yeah, so it sounds like your complaint is actually with application not propagating relevant error handling information to where it’s most convenient for you to read it. Linux is not at fault in your example, because as you said, it returns all the information needed to fix the issue to the one who developed the code, and then they just dropped the ball.
Maybe there’s a flag you can set to dump those kinds of errors to a log? But even then, some apps use the fail case as part of normal operation (try to open a file, if we can’t, do this other thing). You wouldn’t actually want to know about every single failure, just the ones that the application considers fatal.
As long as you’re running on a turing complete machine, it’s on the app itself to sufficiently document what qualifies as an error and why it happened.
The whole point of my complaint is that shitty C conventions produce shitty error messages. If I could rely on the programmer to work around those stupid conventions every time by actually checking the error and then enriching it with all relevant information I would have no complaints.
As sysadmin you should know about strace
I know about strace, strace still requires me to reproduce the issue and then to look at backtraces if nobody bothered to include any detail in the error.
Somehow (lack of) backtrace and details in error is “C based assumption”
Assembly doesn’t have concept of objects.
It does very much have the concept of objects as in subject, verb, object of operations implemented in assembly.
As in who (user foo) tried to do what (open/read/write/delete/…) to which object (e.g. which socket, which file, which Linux namespace, which memory mapping,…).
implemented in assembly.
Indeed. Assembly is(can be) used to implement them.
As in who (user foo) tried to do what (open/read/write/delete/…) to which object (e.g. which socket, which file, which Linux namespace, which memory mapping,…).
Kernel implements it in software(except memory mappings, it is implemented in MMU). There are no sockets, files and namespaces in ISA.
You were the one who brought up assembly.
And stop acting like you don’t know what I am talking about. Syscalls implement operations that are called by someone who has certain permissions and operate on various kinds of objects. Nobody who wants to debug why that call returned “Permission denied” or “File does not exist” without any detail cares that there is hardware several layers of abstraction deeper down that doesn’t know anything about those concepts. Nothing in the hardware forces people to make APIs with bad error reporting.
And why “Permission denied” is bad reporting?
Because if a program dies and just prints strerror(errno) it just gives me “Permission denied” without any detail on which operation had permissions denied to do what. So basically I have not enough information to fix the issue or in many cases even to reproduce it.
It may just not print anything at all. This is logging issue, not “C based assumption”. I wouldn’t be surprised if you will call “403 Forbidden” a “C based assumtion” too.
But since we are talking about local program, competent sysadmin can
straceprogram. It will print arguments and error codes.
There’s already a lot of people rewriting stuff in Rust and Zig.
What are the advantages of Zig? I’ve seen lots of people talking about it, but I’m not sure I understand what it supposedly does better.
Tiny learning curve, easy to refactor existing projects
Not too relevant for desktop users but NFS.
No way people are actually setting it up with Kerberos Auth
There are many instances like that. Systemd vs system V init, x vs Wayland, ed vs vim, Tex vs latex vs lyx vs context, OpenOffice vs libreoffice.
Usually someone identifies a problem or a new way of doing things… then a lot of people adapt and some people don’t. Sometimes the new improvement is worse, sometimes it inspires a revival of the old system for the better…
It’s almost never catastrophic for anyone involved.
Some of those are not rewrites but extensions/forks
I’d say only open/libreoffice fits that.
Edit: maybe Tex/latex/lyx too, but context is not.
LaTeX and ConTeXt are both macros for TeX. LyX is a graphical editor which outputs LaTeX.
Yes… I’d classify context as a reboot of latex.
Join the hive mind. Rust is life.
This is going to make my bicycle workshop much easier to run.
The gatekeeping community
