3 ms·

I think you're reading too much into the comment. Your argument is that they're ignoring history. Just because there was something before Linux doesn't mean Lin

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

I think you're reading too much into the comment. Your argument is that they're ignoring history. Just because there was something before Linux doesn't mean Linux hasn't changed things. The point about Linux seems valid to me, seeing as it's the dominant kernel in nearly every market. You go on to praise Windows, as if it's okay to ignore history when it comes to MS. Eh... I think people in HN get overly offended when people state the fact that Linux has been historically revolutionary.

mercurial 10y ago
> seeing as it's the dominant kernel in nearly every market. That's disingenuous, not every market has the same weight. Microsoft owns the desktop market, and there are many countries where it also owns the enterprise/server market. > people in HN get overly offended when people state the fact that Linux has been historically revolutionary There is a big difference between saying "Linux was revolutionary" (considering the impact it had, absolutely true), and "Linux was revolutionary from a technical standpoint" (it wasn't).
- karmajunkie 10y ago
  How was linux revolutionary? Unices had been around for years before that, and IIRC even the choice of a monolithic kernel vs a microkernel architecture was seen as a somewhat conservative choice. Culturally, its not like free software hadnt been a movement for a decade already. IMO Linux's place in history was accidental, occuring because of the confluence of a number of external factors and trends. As another poster noted, if it hadn't been Linux, it would have been BSD or something else entirely. (All of which is not to downplay the value and contributions that Linux did make. But lets keep it in perspective.)
JdeBP 10y ago
It's rather difficult to read too much into an unequivocal all-encompassing statement that "Linux made everything possible.".

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

mercurial 10y ago

> seeing as it's the dominant kernel in nearly every market. That's disingenuous, not every market has the same weight. Microsoft owns the desktop market, and there are many countries where it also owns the enterprise/server market. > people in HN get overly offended when people state the fact that Linux has been historically revolutionary There is a big difference between saying "Linux was revolutionary" (considering the impact it had, absolutely true), and "Linux was revolutionary from a technical standpoint" (it wasn't).

karmajunkie 10y ago
How was linux revolutionary? Unices had been around for years before that, and IIRC even the choice of a monolithic kernel vs a microkernel architecture was seen as a somewhat conservative choice. Culturally, its not like free software hadnt been a movement for a decade already. IMO Linux's place in history was accidental, occuring because of the confluence of a number of external factors and trends. As another poster noted, if it hadn't been Linux, it would have been BSD or something else entirely. (All of which is not to downplay the value and contributions that Linux did make. But lets keep it in perspective.)

JdeBP 10y ago

It's rather difficult to read too much into an unequivocal all-encompassing statement that "Linux made everything possible.".