The web was built, and runs on, *nix/BSD. Windows is an outlier. Windows can't even get the slashes going the right way. There's a reason 80% of internet traffic does not use Windows.
I also don't think it's strictly true. For sure the underlying networking came from Unix. But as for the web itself, once we got to real dynamic content, it seems to me that Microsoft were the ones that got things moving.
While the Unix world was mired in the awful world of CGI, Microsoft gave us high-performance ISAPI, and then Cold Fusion (also on the Windows platform) and Microsoft's ASP made programming a little more sane. While the Unix world tried to deal with JSP (which IMHO wasn't a very good solution), the Microsoft platform seems to have been the innovators for several years, until Ruby on Rails and then node.js and stuff started coming out.
Today, the Apache server powers far more sites than any other, it's true. But IIS shares the 2nd-place spot [1]. When you say "There's a reason 80% of internet traffic does not use Windows", that's pretty much true for the servers, but far off the mark when counting clients. And the reason for that is that Microsoft's strength hasn't historically been radical advances, but in figuring out ways to take the bleeding edge tech that doesn't really work quite right yet, and packaging it into commodity software that may not be as sexy as envisioned by those with the original ideas, but actually useful to the average guy.
Your examples presume there was something better than CGI at the time and the other products are better than something else. For one, I wouldn't be caught dead using any of the products you mentioned.
You claim IIS by using a ZDNet article from two years ago but the reality is IIS is number three behind Nginx and Apache. Still, being a distant #2 is nothing to brag about.
Now you're trying to claim clients are what powers the web but that's not the topic. What an amateur uses does not define what the professional uses. And to claim not wanting to be on the bleeding edge of things is no excuse for falling behind. Firefox and Chrome knocked IE off its perch years ago by being on the bleeding edge.
Likely more than that seeing as how the majority of the load balancers and many of the routers / switches out there run some form of BSD (netscalar) or Linux (Arista), etc.
There will always be someone greater or lesser than yourself. Don't worry about it. You hear about the successes but not how they got there. Half the time it was a lucky break; being in the right place at the right time. Other times they worked 100-hour weeks for a year, got divorced, and their kids hate them.
Then, next week, you never hear about them again. Well, maybe a couple of them you will, a year later, but not the others. They're forgotten.
Do what you want to do and quit relying on other people's stories to make you miserable. They aren't you and there are plenty of people, here on HN, who wish they were in your position.
Apparently you don't understand what a prison is for or how those people got there. Your point a) implies you think prisoners are not bad people which stands out to me.
You are in prison to be punished for what you did AND pay back your debt to society.
If we only locked up truly guilty people up for truly bad things, that would be fine.
But even ignoring the large number of innocent people in prison; we have a lot of laws that are blatantly unjust. The biggest would be that about half of the prison population is there for minor drug offenses. A guy smoking a plant that makes him giddy and hungry is not worth locking up at substantial cost to taxpayers. Or you have the guy that spent six months in prison because he ordered a hentai comic book from Japan, and the postal inspector thought that the girl that looked 16 drawn in pencil was a real child being harmed. Or you have the elderly black woman who got put into what is essentially debtors prison because she couldn't pay her traffic tickets. Or the guy that got locked up for refusing to pay child support on a kid that turned out to not be his, but the judge didn't care about little things like facts. And on and on and on.
In fact, we have so many ridiculous laws that it's been said that the average American commits three felonies a day:
So, we should let everybody go? You're complaining as if jails should be abolished and, seemingly, all laws, too.
While innocent people do go to jail, most people in jail are not innocent. You only hear about the innocent ones cause it makes the news but, by far, most people are in jail cause they deserve to be there.
I'm saying we shouldn't have unjust laws. But since we do, we shouldn't treat them all as slaves. I'm saying we shouldn't have innocent people in prison, but that's impossible to prevent. And since we do, again, we shouldn't treat them all as slaves.
I'm more interested in prison for rehabilitation than I am as punishment. I'd rather we reduce the recidivism rate than bask in schadenfreude. I'm more interested in addressing why we have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any first world nation.
Whether you agree or not with how they got to prison has nothing to do with how a prison should operate. The point is prison's do what they do with people incarcerated and no one should consider it as a nice place to spend some time.
What straw man? I've been arguing against forced prison labor this entire time, even before you joined the conversation. I haven't deflected any points you were making to some new topic.
And yes, I'm all for taking the TVs out of prisons and not having it be a good time. I'm also against mandatory labor. They're prisoners, but they're still human beings.
Others here have said it's voluntary, so if that's true, that's at least better. I still think they should be paid fairly so as to not displace jobs from people not in prison, though.
It's clear though that I'm against this, and you're not, so there's really no point in continuing on. I'll just say that I hope you never have to experience working for pennies a day.
In most cases, it's not cryptic or strange at all and makes perfect sense. This article ignores history. Back then, names were shortened to save every available byte cause ram and disk usage was so limited. It was also easier to type when you did everything from the command line. In addition, a lot of these were created in some lab somewhere, like Bell Labs, and they had no intention of you using it.
Long ago, when I heard of awk and sed, the first thing I did was ask what they stood for. I would think any seriously interested computer person would do the same thing.
In most cases, it's not cryptic or strange at all and makes perfect sense.
Just because it made sense and was entirely justified right then, does not mean that it is not cryptic or strange today. That's kind of the point of the explanations: to explain why the names are so cryptic and strange.
Long ago, when I heard of awk and sed, the first thing I did was ask what they stood for. I would think any seriously interested computer person would do the same thing.
Interesting expectation. I think why I always wondered, I did not really ask that often. Firstly because when I started, there were not many places to ask for (hardly any non-students even had Internet access), second because it would get tedious after a short time.
It's entirely justified for even very serious "computer persons" to have used these commands all the time and only now learning the meaning of some of them.
It makes sense today and isn't cryptic at all. Perhaps to outsiders it is but we're not outsiders. We know it stands for something and "stream editor" should make sense. Looking it up is a matter of "man sed" or, in my case long ago, I'd turn to the guy sitting next to me and ask him.
Yes, awk is an exception, and there are others, but they aren't the rule.
When sed was new, the name wouldn't even have been considered cryptic: everybody already new ed.
Also: before sed there was gres. I'm not saying it's relevant, just that I've thought it would be better to have gres, and have it be the standard, than sed. (Match and substitution in actually-separate arguments.)
Your complaint is about people who don't know what XML is and how to use it and broken tools, not XML. XML does not cause any of the examples you show.
