> And that does mean reinventing it, not being resigned to the status quo.
There are 2 options: Either we incrementally improve, or we break with tradition. I'm pretty sure people have been saying that we should break with tradition and do better than unix at least since the 90s, but for just as long the incremental improvements keep coming and keep being perfectly good. Modern unix-family OSs are not the unix-family OSs of 30 years ago; we have crash-consistent filesystems, your choice of improved security systems, assorted jail/container systems for compatibility/scaling/security, better service management, etc. Or perhaps phrased differently:
> After 30 years of it now on my part, I know we can and should do better.
We are - just in place rather than throwing out a perfectly good system and ecosystem.
There are 2 options: Either we incrementally improve, or we break with tradition. I'm pretty sure people have been saying that we should break with tradition and do better than unix at least since the 90s, but for just as long the incremental improvements keep coming and keep being perfectly good. Modern unix-family OSs are not the unix-family OSs of 30 years ago; we have crash-consistent filesystems, your choice of improved security systems, assorted jail/container systems for compatibility/scaling/security, better service management, etc. Or perhaps phrased differently:
> After 30 years of it now on my part, I know we can and should do better.
We are - just in place rather than throwing out a perfectly good system and ecosystem.