4 ms·

That is definitely revisionism. I was there when it started happening. It started happening because of two things: 1. Unix vendors were tearing each other apar

That is definitely revisionism. I was there when it started happening. It started happening because of two things: 1. Unix vendors were tearing each other apart in the Unix Wars. 2. Linux was cheaper than Windows NT. The second point is critical: many industries had Unix-based software and even the source code of said software, they just needed a platform to run it on. Linux on x86 servers was orders of magnitude cheaper than Solaris on SPARC, HP-UX on PA-RISC, or AIX on POWER. And for the existing SPARC/PA-RISC/POWER servers running these UNIX OSes, the investment wasn't entirely lost because they could put Linux on those too. That is what made Linux on servers win. It wasn't better. It was cheaper. We have spent most of the 2000s catching up to Solaris, AIX, and other server Unix systems. The 2010s was all about catching up to desktop Unix systems like IRIX, Solaris (again!), and NeXT. Now? We're at the tail end of that effort. Who knows what's next. :)

narag 4y ago
It wasn't better. It was cheaper. Cheaper is better, all other things equal. If the other systems were ten times more expensive, were they also ten times better in some other metrics to compensate?
- Conan_Kudo 4y ago
  Linux was definitely a worse system back then. But probably not necessarily 10x worse. It definitely got comparatively worse as some Unix vendors added interesting features, but Linux has spent the past couple decades catching up because there was so much money coming in from the people switching from those Unix systems to Linux. :)
  - narag 4y ago
    I bet a similar effect could happen with the desktop part. Not around price, or we would've already seen it. Actually, I suspect that's really the reason "the year of Linux on the desktop" never materialized: that Microsoft managed to blur the added burden of its licences on the final prices of laptops and desktop computers.

narag 4y ago

It wasn't better. It was cheaper. Cheaper is better, all other things equal. If the other systems were ten times more expensive, were they also ten times better in some other metrics to compensate?

Conan_Kudo 4y ago
Linux was definitely a worse system back then. But probably not necessarily 10x worse. It definitely got comparatively worse as some Unix vendors added interesting features, but Linux has spent the past couple decades catching up because there was so much money coming in from the people switching from those Unix systems to Linux. :)
- narag 4y ago
  I bet a similar effect could happen with the desktop part. Not around price, or we would've already seen it. Actually, I suspect that's really the reason "the year of Linux on the desktop" never materialized: that Microsoft managed to blur the added burden of its licences on the final prices of laptops and desktop computers.