Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
He focused on the wrong lawsuitHe focused on the wrong lawsuitPosted Nov 19, 2011 15:27 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: He focused on the wrong lawsuit by man_ls Parent article: Interview with Andrew Tanenbaum (LinuxFr.org)
The whole point is that if it hadn't be for the pre-95 lawsuits, there might have been no Linux contender afterwards. And I shudder thinking of what would have happened then with the BSDs fading away as they did, and something else taking over...
(Log in to post comments)
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 19, 2011 15:41 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is not Tanenbaum's argument: he saysI think Linux succeeded against BSD, which was a stable mature system at the time simply because BSDI got stuck in a lawsuit and was effectively stopped for several years.However the wikipedia article states that the lawsuit was settled in 1993. The BSDs might have overtaken GNU/Linux easily. Why would have Linux disappeared anyway? Linus started his kernel in 1991 before the lawsuit, and his inspiration was rather the Hurd than the BSDs. What fundamental change might have happened anyway, but for the lawsuits? It is not credible. In fact it's only now that I have read the interview itself, and it is true that the guy misses the point so widely that Microsoft would be envious.
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 20, 2011 19:30 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I think you miss the point. Linux wouldn't have disappeared, it would never have appeared.
Linus couldn't get a cheap Unix-like (or even just a cheap) OS for his new 386. If BSD had been easily available (thanks to the lawsuit it wasn't) then he might never have started Linux.
Cheers,
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 20, 2011 19:39 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
USL vs BSDi wasn't filed until after the first release of Linux. The lawsuit may have delayed the development of BSD for home machines, but it's not the reason that Linus wrote his own kernel.
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:23 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Linus himself said in 1993 that if 386BSD had come out before (0.0 came out in 1992) Linux would never have happened. I did compare roughly contemporary MCC and 386BSD versions from the 1992-1993 timeframe, and 386BSD sure was a much more polished system. I was using 4.1 BSD during my PhD studies in 19984 to 1987, it wasn't exactly a long shot imagining porting most of that to a PC in the starting 1990s. But the lawsuits and concurrent assorted wild claims of infringement did make people somewhat nervous about ending up stranded with BSD, and so looked around for alternatives.
Counterpoint Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:26 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes. Notice that Linus in his seminal message spoke about the Hurd as the competition, not about BSD. And even that "big and professional" kernel did not stop him from starting his pet project. So your point is not too credible, that is my point.
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 21, 2011 14:23 UTC (Mon) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> Linus couldn't get a cheap Unix-like (or even just a cheap) OS for his new 386.
This motivation is far from certain. Linux started out as a terminal emulator and increasingly got extended until it was a full fledged kernel. It essentially was a research/hobby project, and it is far from certained that it wouldn't have happened if somehand had handed Linux a free Minix CD at that time.
Too much speculation :-)
Linux vs BSD Posted Nov 22, 2011 21:25 UTC (Tue) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
Linus was actually using Minix while developing that terminal client & later the kernel now known as Linux... (The Minix filesystem was also the first Linux filesystem, as Linus needed to be able to read files from his development system's disk.)
|
|||||||||||||