3 ms·

We would probably be using one of the BSDs. However, it is better to look at it in reality: Torvalds did the hard part, which is getting there first. His bigge

We would probably be using one of the BSDs. However, it is better to look at it in reality: Torvalds did the hard part, which is getting there first. His biggest contribution is actually in maintaining and growing his project into the huge thing it has become today. What would have stopped the continued fragmentation in the BSDs had they carried the day? Yes, Linux distributions are quite fragmented, but most of them run the same kernel (now-defunct mkLinux ca. 2002 aside).

don-code 5y ago
This seems prescient. There were cutting-edge products being delivered on non-commercial BSDs well through the 90s - Hotmail, for instance. But most of those solutions were being delivered on commodity off-the-shelf hardware. Linux's "killer feature" for adoption may just have been the copyleft license. If device manufacturers had delivered today's generations of single-board computers, networked cameras, Android phones, and who-knows-what else on a permissively-licensed OS like BSD, each of these device trees would have had no mandate to make source available - and as such, I'd bet that any one entity (Samsung, LG, HTC, etc.) maintaining a device tree wouldn't have seen fit to open-source their "trade secrets" in the ARM ecosystem. Which, I'd also bet, would have led to fewer manufacturers adopting noncommercial BSD to begin with, as the "core" distribution would have been less ready to take on new platforms.
- arp242 5y ago
  It's really hard to say or sure, but personally I think Torvalds' leadership had a lot to do with it as well. I know the "public image" is one of a shouty twat hurling insults and giving the finger, but that's just part of is style (previous comment: [1]). Overall, he seems quite pleasant and reasonable: someone you can disagree with, and who isn't afraid to say "okay, that's fair, I changed my mind". The general attitude is one of pragmatism, which is not the case for all (high-profile) maintainers out there. Linux also always had comparatively low barriers of entry to get stuff merged; it's a bit higher now (quite a lot actually), but during the 90s and 00s there was some disdain from BSD folk towards Linux as "anything will get merged". This was not a completely unfair criticism; I mean, we're still stuck with things like ALSA today right? It also allowed Linux to grow much faster however; getting something merged to BSD involved a lot more review/effort. It's a trade-off. Stability and "we never break userland" is another important piece, again, driven by Linus. Also, the FreeBSD 5 release was kind of bad. They changed a lot of internals, and it was far less stable than FreeBSD 4. I never had any problems on 4, but 5 had an alarming number of freezes and the like. This was mostly fixed in FreeBSD 6, but it turned a lot of people off. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26815088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26815088
arp242 5y ago
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never have happened." Torvalds in 1993; 386BSD was released in March 1992, a few months after Linux's first Sept. 1991 release. Another problem that plagued the BSDs throughout the 90s is the whole AT&T lawsuit, which eventually turned out to be about a few header files or something :-/

don-code 5y ago

This seems prescient. There were cutting-edge products being delivered on non-commercial BSDs well through the 90s - Hotmail, for instance. But most of those solutions were being delivered on commodity off-the-shelf hardware. Linux's "killer feature" for adoption may just have been the copyleft license. If device manufacturers had delivered today's generations of single-board computers, networked cameras, Android phones, and who-knows-what else on a permissively-licensed OS like BSD, each of these device trees would have had no mandate to make source available - and as such, I'd bet that any one entity (Samsung, LG, HTC, etc.) maintaining a device tree wouldn't have seen fit to open-source their "trade secrets" in the ARM ecosystem. Which, I'd also bet, would have led to fewer manufacturers adopting noncommercial BSD to begin with, as the "core" distribution would have been less ready to take on new platforms.

arp242 5y ago
It's really hard to say or sure, but personally I think Torvalds' leadership had a lot to do with it as well. I know the "public image" is one of a shouty twat hurling insults and giving the finger, but that's just part of is style (previous comment: [1]). Overall, he seems quite pleasant and reasonable: someone you can disagree with, and who isn't afraid to say "okay, that's fair, I changed my mind". The general attitude is one of pragmatism, which is not the case for all (high-profile) maintainers out there. Linux also always had comparatively low barriers of entry to get stuff merged; it's a bit higher now (quite a lot actually), but during the 90s and 00s there was some disdain from BSD folk towards Linux as "anything will get merged". This was not a completely unfair criticism; I mean, we're still stuck with things like ALSA today right? It also allowed Linux to grow much faster however; getting something merged to BSD involved a lot more review/effort. It's a trade-off. Stability and "we never break userland" is another important piece, again, driven by Linus. Also, the FreeBSD 5 release was kind of bad. They changed a lot of internals, and it was far less stable than FreeBSD 4. I never had any problems on 4, but 5 had an alarming number of freezes and the like. This was mostly fixed in FreeBSD 6, but it turned a lot of people off. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26815088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26815088

arp242 5y ago

"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never have happened." Torvalds in 1993; 386BSD was released in March 1992, a few months after Linux's first Sept. 1991 release. Another problem that plagued the BSDs throughout the 90s is the whole AT&T lawsuit, which eventually turned out to be about a few header files or something :-/