4 ms·

Keep in mind, too, that path dependence plays a huge role here. Linux took off when the alternatives were Windows NT, Novell Netware, or commercial Unixes runni

by jfb 6y ago

Keep in mind, too, that path dependence plays a huge role here. Linux took off when the alternatives were Windows NT, Novell Netware, or commercial Unixes running on underpowered RISC hardware.

wbl 6y ago
BSD was around!
- messe 6y ago
  It was, but it was in legal limbo.
  - cesarb 6y ago
    I have also read that, back then, Linux was better at supporting common hardware than the BSDs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21420338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21420338). My personal experience at the time is that I didn't even consider the BSDs; Linux had UMSDOS, which allowed me to try it out without having to repartition and/or reformat (then later I noticed that I was nearly always on Linux, so I reformatted a whole partition as ext2 and dedicated it exclusively to Linux).
  - rst 6y ago
    After the legal limbo came a whole bunch of fractious disputes within and between multiple core teams -- initially FreeBSD (concentrating on PC-derived platforms) and NetBSD (cross-platform), both having some roots in the earlier, troubled 386BSD project led by Bill Jolitz, with some later forks from each group (most notably OpenBSD). Those persisted long after the legal issues were effectively settled, and really hindered the BSDs in general from keeping up with Linux-based OS distributions.
  - setpatchaddress 6y ago
    Linux also had a very clear story for access to source code and a clear structure for accepting/rejecting contributions.
p_l 6y ago
Late 1990s,a huge amount of linux installs in the business happened because of Samba and Apache
- jfb 6y ago
  Right! It takes nothing away from the Linux developers to acknowledge the enormous role of contingency in Linux' initial adoption.
tyingq 6y ago
"commercial Unixes running on underpowered RISC hardware." Commercial Unix running on expensive hardware (and software) was the key opening for Linux, not the underpowered bit. Linux on X86 took a while to catch up performance wise.

by jfb 6y ago

Keep in mind, too, that path dependence plays a huge role here. Linux took off when the alternatives were Windows NT, Novell Netware, or commercial Unixes running on underpowered RISC hardware.

wbl 6y ago

BSD was around!

messe 6y ago
It was, but it was in legal limbo.
- cesarb 6y ago
  I have also read that, back then, Linux was better at supporting common hardware than the BSDs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21420338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21420338). My personal experience at the time is that I didn't even consider the BSDs; Linux had UMSDOS, which allowed me to try it out without having to repartition and/or reformat (then later I noticed that I was nearly always on Linux, so I reformatted a whole partition as ext2 and dedicated it exclusively to Linux).
- rst 6y ago
  After the legal limbo came a whole bunch of fractious disputes within and between multiple core teams -- initially FreeBSD (concentrating on PC-derived platforms) and NetBSD (cross-platform), both having some roots in the earlier, troubled 386BSD project led by Bill Jolitz, with some later forks from each group (most notably OpenBSD). Those persisted long after the legal issues were effectively settled, and really hindered the BSDs in general from keeping up with Linux-based OS distributions.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  Linux also had a very clear story for access to source code and a clear structure for accepting/rejecting contributions.

p_l 6y ago

Late 1990s,a huge amount of linux installs in the business happened because of Samba and Apache

jfb 6y ago
Right! It takes nothing away from the Linux developers to acknowledge the enormous role of contingency in Linux' initial adoption.

tyingq 6y ago

"commercial Unixes running on underpowered RISC hardware." Commercial Unix running on expensive hardware (and software) was the key opening for Linux, not the underpowered bit. Linux on X86 took a while to catch up performance wise.