5 ms·
Was it important to have a monoculture is what I'm wondering.
by codeulike 8y ago
Was it important to have a monoculture is what I'm wondering.
- mixmastamyk 8y agoThe fact that linux runs on almost anything would probably have helped it in a heterogeneous environment.
- codeulike 8y agoBut is 'linux runs on anything' something that happened after it had achieved critical mass?
- mixmastamyk 8y agoSee sibling comment.
- umanwizard 8y agoHow long has that been true? It certainly started out as PC-only.
- mixmastamyk 8y agoIt was ported pretty early, I remember "beowulf clusters" of devices mentioned on Slashdot in the late 90s. Edit: Checked wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#Chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#Chronology 1995: Linux is ported to the DEC Alpha and to the Sun SPARC. Over the following years it is ported to an ever-greater number of platforms.
- lucozade 8y ago> Was it important to have a monoculture is what I'm wondering Obviously this is just speculation but I would say, no. And the reason I say that is that Linux primarily took off on the server side. Mobile was quite a lot later. On the server side it wasn't a monoculture. Sun was a huge player. When we were making the case for Linux, around 2000, it was presented as a cost play against Sun/Solaris. Of course, it's fair to say that part of the reason it was a cost play was because Intel kit was so cheap and that was a direct effect of the desktop environment. But I'd contend that it wasn't a reaction to the Wintel desktop monopoly.
- codeulike 8y agoThats a really interesting view on it, thanks