3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoHow 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.)