6 ms·

The political factors that led to the adoption of Linux as a defacto standard are endlessly interesting to me. As programmers we like to think of ourselves a

The political factors that led to the adoption of Linux as a defacto standard are endlessly interesting to me. As programmers we like to think of ourselves as objective to the hilt, but the reality is that at some point the pragmatic choice is to capitulate to a common standard for the sake of higher-level efforts. In many ways this is purely a political decision because we don't yet see the fallout from the tradeoffs made, and by the time we do it's too late to go back and rebuild the foundations. We can't go back now and replace UNIX because we've too much invested in it and there's work to be done.

cmbaus 11y ago
What political factors are you referring to? I think Linux took off because it was easily accessible and widely available, and Linus made a lot of pragmatic choices. I remember in the 90s how awesome it seemed to get a *nix system for free with a book.
- mzs 11y ago
  I cannot speak for anyone else but personally in college I went linux instead of a BSD on my desk cause the whole AT&T law suit was still pretty murky and frightening to me.
- jimjimjim 11y ago
  It was pretty much the focal point and poster child for open source (even before open source was picked up as the phrase to describe the movement). back then it was everybody versus microsoft.
- cturner 11y ago
  IBM's investment in Linux was political. For decades, IBM's identity was as a platform company. It was becoming a regular loser outside of its enterprise monopoly. It was late to the party on home computing. It created the PC but still lost control of the platform. It tried to recover with OS/2. It was a pretty good platform but they couldn't get the details right. This was was fizzing as well. Around 1996 they made a pivot. They invested heavily to recreate themselves as a company who sold services based on Windows NT. This was a desperate move, but it worked - by the late 90s they had reinvented themselves as a services business. One of the stories of the late 90s was the way that IBM had reinvented themselves. Then, shrewdly, they invested heavily in Linux. At a time, FreeBSD was still a much better platform. But Linux had the GPL behind it. The GPL forces people to release changes. This sabotaged the commercial software market, which IBM had already lost. IBM could continue to charge for services and retain their hardware monopoly. This has hurt competitors who had strong footholds in software but who who were less strong in services (Sun, Oracle).
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > It tried to recover with OS/2. It was a pretty good platform but they couldn't get the details right. This was was fizzing as well. Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. So non-PS/2 hardware was a lot cheaper, because there were a hundred companies trying to sell it. But that cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 (at least initially). But when Microsoft was able to keep pace (more or less) with Windows, nobody wanted the PS/2, because Windows on commodity hardware was good enough, and less expensive.
    - cturner 11y ago
      > Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. The "IBM Compatible" was already well-established though. PS2 architecture plays were an attempt for them to get relevant again, and it didn't work. The main technology that they had was EISA, and there wasn't much edge from having that. > cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 I don't think that's quite right. A mate had a PS2 that was bundled with OS/2 4 in 1996. We found that the OS/2 install disks that were bundled with his PS2 wouldn't install to other systems. But I never had trouble getting shrinkwrapped os/2 running on commodity ISA or VESA bus hardware - 2.0, 2.1, 3, 4. I ran it as my main desktop for five years. You did have a poor experience if you didn't have a well-supported video card, and almost nothing was well-supported.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I stand corrected.
        cturner 11y ago
        Had a wake-at-4am. The prop IBM arch wasn't EISA, it was Micro Channel. (thanks)
- kragen 11y ago
  Yeah, the political factor was that I didn't know anybody who had a copy of Plan 9 to give me, because Bell Labs had a government-granted monopoly on giving people copies of Plan 9. Meanwhile my uncle was sending me SLS disks...
pjmlp 11y ago
Yet the way I see it there is more OS research going on with unikernels and at Microsoft Research labs than with Linux. Which appears just to be the same old idea of UNIX and mainframes revamped in new package, stuck in C and in a kernel model that has hardly changed. EDIT: To clarify. Many use GNU/Linux in the same way as they would be using UNIX SYSTEM V, there is hardly any change. Add to it that besides new filesystems, adoption of mainframe virtualization and sandboxes concepts, there is hardly anything new happening in OS research in regards to Linux. What I currently care about is OS research that tries to mimick the Xerox PARC experiences, use of micro-kernels, use of safe systems programming languages and so forth.
- ben_bai 11y ago
  Minix 3 seems interesting. But for the foreseeable future C seems to be the language of choice for OS development.
  - silon7 11y ago
    Rust is safe(r) and could be integrate/replace with C incrementally.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      In theory yes, but I don't think a UNIX clone will adopt it as such. It is a matter of culture. Better in other OS that are already researching alternative systems programming languages.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Yet the way I see it there is more OS research going on with unikernels and at Microsoft Research labs than with Linux. Unikernels are just the logical continuation of exokernels, except designed to run under a bare metal hypervisor. Though still excellent to see libOS taken to its limits, I find the task of actually turning a full workstation operating system into a secure multi-tenant distributed cluster system to be more versatile, as you could then tailor it to both general-purpose and special tasks, libOS being firmly in the latter - deploying applications. Singularity was great, though it seems to have stagnated.
rbanffy 11y ago
> the pragmatic choice is to capitulate to a common standard for the sake of higher-level efforts. That's being very objective. Technical merits can only get you so far. One should never be too attached to them.
- dasil003 11y ago
  Sure, but this only gets you to a local maximum because eventually you pass the point where it is objectively worth it to revisit the foundations of computing. This is the downside of human sentience and global communication where we are incapable of exploring different paths in an evolutionary fashion because we know it's not worth it unless a critical mass joins us, and we know a critical mass will never join us on something that is too foundational across existing bodies of work.

cmbaus 11y ago

What political factors are you referring to? I think Linux took off because it was easily accessible and widely available, and Linus made a lot of pragmatic choices. I remember in the 90s how awesome it seemed to get a *nix system for free with a book.

mzs 11y ago
I cannot speak for anyone else but personally in college I went linux instead of a BSD on my desk cause the whole AT&T law suit was still pretty murky and frightening to me.
jimjimjim 11y ago
It was pretty much the focal point and poster child for open source (even before open source was picked up as the phrase to describe the movement). back then it was everybody versus microsoft.
cturner 11y ago
IBM's investment in Linux was political. For decades, IBM's identity was as a platform company. It was becoming a regular loser outside of its enterprise monopoly. It was late to the party on home computing. It created the PC but still lost control of the platform. It tried to recover with OS/2. It was a pretty good platform but they couldn't get the details right. This was was fizzing as well. Around 1996 they made a pivot. They invested heavily to recreate themselves as a company who sold services based on Windows NT. This was a desperate move, but it worked - by the late 90s they had reinvented themselves as a services business. One of the stories of the late 90s was the way that IBM had reinvented themselves. Then, shrewdly, they invested heavily in Linux. At a time, FreeBSD was still a much better platform. But Linux had the GPL behind it. The GPL forces people to release changes. This sabotaged the commercial software market, which IBM had already lost. IBM could continue to charge for services and retain their hardware monopoly. This has hurt competitors who had strong footholds in software but who who were less strong in services (Sun, Oracle).
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > It tried to recover with OS/2. It was a pretty good platform but they couldn't get the details right. This was was fizzing as well. Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. So non-PS/2 hardware was a lot cheaper, because there were a hundred companies trying to sell it. But that cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 (at least initially). But when Microsoft was able to keep pace (more or less) with Windows, nobody wanted the PS/2, because Windows on commodity hardware was good enough, and less expensive.
  - cturner 11y ago
    > Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. The "IBM Compatible" was already well-established though. PS2 architecture plays were an attempt for them to get relevant again, and it didn't work. The main technology that they had was EISA, and there wasn't much edge from having that. > cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 I don't think that's quite right. A mate had a PS2 that was bundled with OS/2 4 in 1996. We found that the OS/2 install disks that were bundled with his PS2 wouldn't install to other systems. But I never had trouble getting shrinkwrapped os/2 running on commodity ISA or VESA bus hardware - 2.0, 2.1, 3, 4. I ran it as my main desktop for five years. You did have a poor experience if you didn't have a well-supported video card, and almost nothing was well-supported.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      I stand corrected.
      - cturner 11y ago
        Had a wake-at-4am. The prop IBM arch wasn't EISA, it was Micro Channel. (thanks)
kragen 11y ago
Yeah, the political factor was that I didn't know anybody who had a copy of Plan 9 to give me, because Bell Labs had a government-granted monopoly on giving people copies of Plan 9. Meanwhile my uncle was sending me SLS disks...

pjmlp 11y ago

Yet the way I see it there is more OS research going on with unikernels and at Microsoft Research labs than with Linux. Which appears just to be the same old idea of UNIX and mainframes revamped in new package, stuck in C and in a kernel model that has hardly changed. EDIT: To clarify. Many use GNU/Linux in the same way as they would be using UNIX SYSTEM V, there is hardly any change. Add to it that besides new filesystems, adoption of mainframe virtualization and sandboxes concepts, there is hardly anything new happening in OS research in regards to Linux. What I currently care about is OS research that tries to mimick the Xerox PARC experiences, use of micro-kernels, use of safe systems programming languages and so forth.

ben_bai 11y ago
Minix 3 seems interesting. But for the foreseeable future C seems to be the language of choice for OS development.
- silon7 11y ago
  Rust is safe(r) and could be integrate/replace with C incrementally.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    In theory yes, but I don't think a UNIX clone will adopt it as such. It is a matter of culture. Better in other OS that are already researching alternative systems programming languages.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Yet the way I see it there is more OS research going on with unikernels and at Microsoft Research labs than with Linux. Unikernels are just the logical continuation of exokernels, except designed to run under a bare metal hypervisor. Though still excellent to see libOS taken to its limits, I find the task of actually turning a full workstation operating system into a secure multi-tenant distributed cluster system to be more versatile, as you could then tailor it to both general-purpose and special tasks, libOS being firmly in the latter - deploying applications. Singularity was great, though it seems to have stagnated.

rbanffy 11y ago

> the pragmatic choice is to capitulate to a common standard for the sake of higher-level efforts. That's being very objective. Technical merits can only get you so far. One should never be too attached to them.

dasil003 11y ago
Sure, but this only gets you to a local maximum because eventually you pass the point where it is objectively worth it to revisit the foundations of computing. This is the downside of human sentience and global communication where we are incapable of exploring different paths in an evolutionary fashion because we know it's not worth it unless a critical mass joins us, and we know a critical mass will never join us on something that is too foundational across existing bodies of work.