Why Was Linux the Kernel That Succeeded?

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 6, 2015 @06:42AM from the belle-of-the-ball dept.

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.

1 of 469 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Meh by jbolden · 2015-05-06 10:20 · Score: 1, Redundant

I don't know. Say Microkernel costs you 60% of performance. You can always go microkernel and accept rolling back 5 years or so on CPU. But at the same time why pay that much performance wise for a different kernel design.
I suspect we are a long long way off from microkernel. Possibly the next entire generation of server OSes might do it since they will be running virtual compute on virtual machines.... with everything being wrapped the micro-kernel might be cheaper.