6 ms·

I know it's off topic, but isn't the article wrong when it mentions: > "Torvalds created Linux in 1991 as an open source alternative to Microsoft Windows"

• talmand 14y ago
  That's the way I've always understood it. If he had wanted an alternative to Windows then it stands to reason it would look and operate more like Windows. Plus it would probably have been named something like Lindows, which someone eventually did.
  • mnazim 14y ago
    Also didn't Windows actually start gaining the majority share only after 95 release, I am not sure about it though.
    • DanBC 14y ago
      Majority share of what? MS Dos was popular on many desktops. CP/M was used on some weird systems (especially word processing); other forms of dos (PC dos, dr dos) were available but not nearly as popular as MS Dos. ("Dodgy" licensing deals were available then.) Windows 3.1 was very popular version of Windows. Windows for workgroups introduced some 32bit kludges. Since these are not operating systems I guess they don't count. But what was competing with them? GEM? Some Norton commander thing?
      • rbanffy 14y ago
        3.1 was very popular at that time. Macs were also more common, although their popularity was eroding. If you wanted Unix you'd probably run it on a 680x0 or RISC box. We all thought RISC would be the future. Linux started in the 386 era. By then, Microsoft owned the PC space. CP/M was a distant memory.
• tarre 14y ago
  That was even said in the same interview, which was very interesting in my opinion. Sadly most people will only watch the least interesting 20 seconds of it.
• rbanffy 14y ago
  Agreed. It's more an alternative to Minix (or Unix). If he wanted an alternative to Windows, he would have written ReactOS.