9 ms·

Linux was started in 1991, so it really belongs in the BeOS era. But Linux isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It's success followed the rise of the interne

by danans 8y ago

Linux was started in 1991, so it really belongs in the BeOS era. But Linux isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It's success followed the rise of the internet, and the resulting huge demand for a free server OS. No commercial vendors were providing that. The other OS's you mentioned are all Desktop OS's, and that market was already buttoned up by the 90s, as it largely still is today. They were up against much steeper odds.

EamonnMR 8y ago
It was built on solid foundations however.
based2 8y ago
1993: FreeBSD
- 51lver 8y ago
  Fork of older upstream project which was a collection of mods for an even older upstream project. Not 90s.
51lver 8y ago
The OS part, the GNU userland, was written before the 90s. The kernel was just the missing piece that made it all work on a 386 desktop that were rising in popularity at the time.
- derekp7 8y ago
  I think a big part of it was the community that formed around the Linux brand. I have a feeling that it could have been Minix, if it was properly open source at the time. But a lot of people in the community were promoting Linux as an alternative to Dos/Windows (based on my recollection of Usenet and BBS postings at the time), whereas GNU, BSD were pushed as an alternative to Unix. And Minix's aim was educational, although Minix 386 (a set of community patches to the system) was more aimed to make Minix production capable.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "I think a big part of it was the community that formed around the Linux brand. " People are criticizing Linus for lack of social skills but somehow he managed to start a big and loyal community. That's not a small feat.
- kbutler 8y ago
  It's interesting how the gnu project narrative of "we did all the work, the kernel was 'just the missing piece'" has propagated. The gnu project worked on a kernel - Hurd. It has been "in active development" since 1990. It's "just the missing piece."
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Hurd was a microkernel that was a genuine attempt at something new. Linux’s monolithic design was very safe, very 70’s/80’s, and was criticized by everyone for not being a serious 90’s microkernel design.
    - peapicker 8y ago
      NeXT mach was a microkernel as well based on CMU’s Mach 2.5 (in the first release) and was in the market in 1988. It was actually fantastic, even when I was running 0.7 of the OS in prerelease at LANL. Hurd started in 1990 so it wasn’t NEW new imho (originally based on Mach 3.0 although NeXT went there too). There are other ideological differences but the core mach microkernel ideology started at CMU in 1985 making microkernels an 80s technology as well.
      - mikekchar 8y ago
        I'm really stretching to remember, but I recall that initially the Hurd was planning to have a completely distributed user system (i.e., file handles were essentially URLs, they had a system for dealing with users distributed in the network, etc). They were going to use the Mach kernel message passing in really innovative ways and I seem to recall that they had in mind some fairly radical ideas for distributed processing. I don't think they ever really realized any of that (I haven't actually checked what they ended up doing). My impression was that the project was dogged with a lot of problems, some technical and some not. Had they succeeded, it would have been a really amazing system, I think. One of these days I keep thinking I should check out what they actually did.
    - kbutler 8y ago
      This was covered extensively over 25 years ago, including the classic comment by Linus that "In fact the /whole/ linux kernel is much smaller than the 386-dependent things in [the existing microkernel] mach". https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html Mach and Hurd were existing microkernels/projects before Linux development began. Linux dominated because it (partly) worked and was accessible and a community formed around it. Hurd had none of those. It's the canonical proof of Richard Gabriel's prescient "Worse is Better (1991)" http://dreamsongs.com/WIB.html http://dreamsongs.com/WIB.html - "The good news is that in 1995 we will have a good operating system and programming language; the bad news is that they will be Unix and C++."
adrianratnapala 8y ago
More to the point, Linux was going out of it's way to retread technology from the '70s. This is shown by the fact that it had ready-made userland in the form of GNU components that had been built to be Unix compatible.
wvenable 8y ago
Linux is the just the kernel for an 80's based OS.
aasasd 8y ago
I'd just like to interject for a moment...
tinus_hn 8y ago
Linux is a kernel though, not an operating system. I don’t care at all for the GNU/Linux debate but it is of course important not to take the start of one part as the start of the whole thing.

by danans 8y ago

EamonnMR 8y ago

It was built on solid foundations however.

based2 8y ago

1993: FreeBSD

51lver 8y ago
Fork of older upstream project which was a collection of mods for an even older upstream project. Not 90s.

51lver 8y ago

The OS part, the GNU userland, was written before the 90s. The kernel was just the missing piece that made it all work on a 386 desktop that were rising in popularity at the time.

derekp7 8y ago
I think a big part of it was the community that formed around the Linux brand. I have a feeling that it could have been Minix, if it was properly open source at the time. But a lot of people in the community were promoting Linux as an alternative to Dos/Windows (based on my recollection of Usenet and BBS postings at the time), whereas GNU, BSD were pushed as an alternative to Unix. And Minix's aim was educational, although Minix 386 (a set of community patches to the system) was more aimed to make Minix production capable.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "I think a big part of it was the community that formed around the Linux brand. " People are criticizing Linus for lack of social skills but somehow he managed to start a big and loyal community. That's not a small feat.
kbutler 8y ago
It's interesting how the gnu project narrative of "we did all the work, the kernel was 'just the missing piece'" has propagated. The gnu project worked on a kernel - Hurd. It has been "in active development" since 1990. It's "just the missing piece."
- philwelch 8y ago
  Hurd was a microkernel that was a genuine attempt at something new. Linux’s monolithic design was very safe, very 70’s/80’s, and was criticized by everyone for not being a serious 90’s microkernel design.
  - peapicker 8y ago
    NeXT mach was a microkernel as well based on CMU’s Mach 2.5 (in the first release) and was in the market in 1988. It was actually fantastic, even when I was running 0.7 of the OS in prerelease at LANL. Hurd started in 1990 so it wasn’t NEW new imho (originally based on Mach 3.0 although NeXT went there too). There are other ideological differences but the core mach microkernel ideology started at CMU in 1985 making microkernels an 80s technology as well.
    - mikekchar 8y ago
      I'm really stretching to remember, but I recall that initially the Hurd was planning to have a completely distributed user system (i.e., file handles were essentially URLs, they had a system for dealing with users distributed in the network, etc). They were going to use the Mach kernel message passing in really innovative ways and I seem to recall that they had in mind some fairly radical ideas for distributed processing. I don't think they ever really realized any of that (I haven't actually checked what they ended up doing). My impression was that the project was dogged with a lot of problems, some technical and some not. Had they succeeded, it would have been a really amazing system, I think. One of these days I keep thinking I should check out what they actually did.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    This was covered extensively over 25 years ago, including the classic comment by Linus that "In fact the /whole/ linux kernel is much smaller than the 386-dependent things in [the existing microkernel] mach". https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html Mach and Hurd were existing microkernels/projects before Linux development began. Linux dominated because it (partly) worked and was accessible and a community formed around it. Hurd had none of those. It's the canonical proof of Richard Gabriel's prescient "Worse is Better (1991)" http://dreamsongs.com/WIB.html http://dreamsongs.com/WIB.html - "The good news is that in 1995 we will have a good operating system and programming language; the bad news is that they will be Unix and C++."

adrianratnapala 8y ago

More to the point, Linux was going out of it's way to retread technology from the '70s. This is shown by the fact that it had ready-made userland in the form of GNU components that had been built to be Unix compatible.

wvenable 8y ago

Linux is the just the kernel for an 80's based OS.

aasasd 8y ago

I'd just like to interject for a moment...

tinus_hn 8y ago

Linux is a kernel though, not an operating system. I don’t care at all for the GNU/Linux debate but it is of course important not to take the start of one part as the start of the whole thing.