Slashdot Mirror
Why Was Linux the Kernel That Succeeded?
jones_supa writes: "One of the most puzzling questions about the history of free and open source software is this: Why did Linux succeed so spectacularly, whereas similar attempts to build a free or open source, Unix-like operating system kernel met with considerably less success?" Christopher Tozzi has rounded up some theories, focusing specifically on kernels, not complete operating systems. These theories take a detailed look at the decentralized development structure, pragmatic approach to things, and the rich developer community, all of which worked in favor of Linux.
Linux is not a copy of Minix, the code is quite different.
Linux is not a copy of Minix, the code is quite different.
Yes. Linux and MINIX are both *NIX-style kernels. But MINIX uses a microkernel design while Linux is a monokernel.
Professor Tanenbaum famously told Linus "Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)"
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.os.minix/wlhw16QWltI%5B1-25%5D
So anyone who claims that Linux is a "copy" of MINIX really doesn't know what they are talking about.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Systemd is a collection of small executables each with a precise goal, in line with the UNIX philosophy. /lib/systemd/systemd-* /usr/bin/systemd-*" if you want to verify this fact.
Do a "ls -alSrh
And how many of them are dependent on other systemd-* or multiple other systemd-* for functionality or require the systemd PID 1?
I think the AC was just confused as Linux's origins are related to MINIX, even if it isn't a clone or shares any code.
From memory, Linux was Torvald's response to the fact MINIX remained a 16 bit operating system. Impatient, Torvald's created the Linux kernel presumably in part because he wanted to create a kernel, but in part to solve the missing 386 Minix issue.
The two were related, but no code from MINIX was present in Linux. As an example, the original Linux file system was a re-implementation of the MINIX file system. Linux's ext family of file systems came later. Early Linux based systems ran the MINIX userland, but this was replaced early on with GNU. It was the replacement with GNU that meant Linux could legally leave the MINIX community and become the kernel of a standalone operating system.
IIRC Linus's original announcement was on the MINIX mailing lists too.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No it wasn't that. Andrew Tannenbaum had no intention of using Minux as a general purpose OS kernel like people wanted it to be. He wanted it to be a teaching kernel and thats all. He didn't accept patches for the most part because he wanted it to remain simple enough for an undergrad student to completely understand (I know that because my WANG hard drive patch couldnt be accepted because of that very reason). Even patches to add networking where rejected.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
The paranoia around the license might be something; the effects your describe is a misconception on your part, but it is a shared misconception, so it does affect people's behavior.
However, what I think is most important was initial hardware support.
FreeBSD and Linux got a different amount of users in the early times, when Linux had more low-end hardware support (IDE disks, missing FPU, low end network drivers by Donald Becker), and gained a lot of marketshare when the ATT lawsuit was happening.
After that, Linux and FreeBSD grew at the same exponential rate for many years, with FreeBSD having the same marketshare. This changed around Linux 2.6. There are several things that happened around then which may account for the loss of FreeBSD marketshare. For example, Matt Dillon (FreeBSD VM system maintainer) helped Linux implement a VM system that worked about as well as FreeBSDs. This had been one of the major selling points of BSD vs Linux. There are also network effects that started being really significant for Linux, as Linux became bigger than all the other Unixes combined. And FreeBSD kept the port system very similar to how it had originally been developed in the mid 1990s, while open source became more intertwined. This made FreeBSD harder to update compared to many Linux distributions, and became seriously annoying around that time.
Since many things happened around the same time, it's hard to pinpoint the exact reason for the divergence.