> Linux was popular because was fast on x86 hardware. Because it booted fast? I don't understand that metric. We don't reboot servers. IMO Linux was a fad, but

> Linux was popular because was fast on x86 hardware. Because it booted fast? I don't understand that metric. We don't reboot servers. IMO Linux was a fad, but it faked it until it made it in 2008-2012. The death march of Sun had a lot to do with it. Linux, even today, never held a candle to the stability of any Sun system. > With ports you could get into a situation where one program would not compile or when it needed another library that the one installed which broke things. Comparing (I assume) apt to ports is Oranges to Apples. Ports is a source-based package management system. Apt is binary based. There are different goals here. > Also BSD wars turned a lot of developers away from BSD. What??! Did I miss the "BSD wars?" BSD won the UNIX wars prior to the Millennium. I'm not sure what you're saying. There'd be no GNU without BSD, and Linux would not be an operating system without GNU. Linux is more GNU than Linux.