4 ms·

I've heard of this debate but haven't heard an argument of adoption from a FOSS perspective. From Wikipedia on Minix [0]: > MINIX was initially proprietary so

I've heard of this debate but haven't heard an argument of adoption from a FOSS perspective. From Wikipedia on Minix [0]: > MINIX was initially proprietary source-available, but was relicensed under the BSD 3-Clause to become free and open-source in 2000. That is a full eight years after this post. Also from Wikipedia on Linux becoming FOSS [1]: > He [Linus Torvalds] first announced this decision in the release notes of version 0.12. In the middle of December 1992 he published version 0.99 using the GNU GPL. So this post was essentially right at the cross roads of Linux going from some custom license to FOSS while MINIX would remain proprietary for another eight years, presumably long after it had lost to Linux. I do wonder how much of an effect, subtle or otherwise, the licensing helped or hindered adoption of either. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux

otherme123 2y ago
I installed my first linux in 1996. It came in a CD with a computer magazine: a free OS. That was huge, for me at least. Said CDs were filled with shareware software like winzip, that you had to buy or crack to use at 100%. Meanwhile there was this thing called Linux, for free, that included a web server, ftp, firewall, a free C compiler, that thing called latex that produced beautiful documents... The only thing it required from you was to sacrifice a bit of confort in the UI, and a bit of extra effort to get better results. I didn't heard about Minix until mid 2000's maybe, and it was like an old legend of an allegedly better-than-linux OS that failed because people are dumb.
- abetusk 2y ago
  1997-1998 was about the time I first installed Linux (slackware) from a stack of 3.5" floppy disks. By then, Linux had picked up enough momentum, which is why, I guess, you and I both had access to CD/floppy installation methods. The folklore around the Linux/Minix debate, for me, was that "working code wins" and either microkernel wasn't as beneficial as was claimed or through grit and elbow grease, Linux pushed through to viability. But now I wonder how true that narrative is. Could it have been that FOSS provided the boost in network effects for Linux that compounded its popularity and helped it soar past Minix? Was Minix hampered by Tanenbaum gatekeeping the software and refusal to cede copyright control? To me, the licensing seems pretty important as, even if the boost to adoption was small, it could have compounding network effects that helped with popularity. I just never heard this argument before so I wonder how true it is, if at all.
  - lproven 2y ago
    > The folklore around the Linux/Minix debate, for me, was that "working code wins" and either microkernel wasn't as beneficial as was claimed Hang on. That does not work. You need to be careful about the timeline here. Linus worked with and built the very early versions of the Linux kernel on Minix 1. Minix 1 was not a microkernel, only directly supported 8088 and 8086 (and other architectures, but the point here is not 80286 or 80386, so no hardware memory management) and it was not FOSS. Minix 2 arrived in 1997, was FOSS, and supported the 80386, i.e. x86-32. Minix 3 was the first microkernel version and was not released until 2005. You are comparing original early-era Linux with a totally different version of Minix that didn't exist yet and wouldn't for well over a decade. In the early 1990s, the comparison was: Minix 1: source available, but not redistributable; 16-bit only, max 1MB of RAM, no hardware memory protection, and very limited. Linux 0.x to 1.x: FOSS, 32-bit, fully exploited 32-bit PCs. 4GB of RAM if you could afford it, but could use 4MB - 8MB for normal non-millionaire people.
    - abetusk 2y ago
      I'm pretty ignorant of the timeline and I'm only going off of some vague memory and what Wikipedia says. Note that the OP is from 1992, so Tanenbaum was arguing for micro-kernels well before the Minix 2 1997 release. From Wikipedia's entry on Minix 1.5 [0]: > MINIX 1.5, released in 1991, ... . There were also unofficial ports to Intel 386 PC compatibles (in 32-bit protected mode), ... I found an article online that dates from 1999 but referencing a comp.os.minix post from Tanenbaum from 1992 where Tanenbaum clearly states MINIX is a microkernel system [1]: > MINIX is a microkernel-based system. Further, I don't see any reference of Minix 2 being released as FOSS in 1997. Wikipedia claims Minix 2.0.3 released in May 2001 was the first version of MINIX released under a BSD-3 license [0]: > Version 2.0.3 was released in May 2001. It was the first version after MINIX had been relicensed under the BSD-3-Clause license, which was retroactively applied to all previous versions. From Wikipedia's entry on "History of Linux" [2]: > In 1991, ..., Linus Torvalds began a project that later became the Linux kernel. ... . Development was done on MINIX using the GNU C Compiler. > On 25 August 1991, he [Linus torvalds] ... announced ... in another posting to the comp.os.minix newsgroup > PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, ... So, I don't really know if Tanenbaum was talking "in theory" about where best to allocate effort and/or if Minix 1/2 were actually a microkernel design, but it seems so. I'm also pretty ignorant of whether Minix 1/2 could be used on 80286 or 80386 chips. Though I'm very fuzzy on the details it does seem like the sentiment remains. It looks like Torvalds work on Linux was, either directly or in large part, due to the restrictive licensing of Minix [3]: > Frustrated by the licensing of Minix, which at the time limited it to educational use only, he began to work on his operating system kernel, which eventually became the Linux kernel. In a 1997 interview, Torvalds says: > Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#MINIX_1.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#MINIX_1.5 [1] https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Creation [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20070826212454/http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070826212454/http://www.tlug.j...
LeFantome 2y ago
It is not at all subtle. If Minix was free, Linus may never Have written Linux at all. It cost $50 (as I recall). Linus hated that. The first Linux license was that you could not charge for Linux. As it grew in popularity, people wanted to be able to charge for media (to cover their costs). So, Linus switched to the GPL which kept the code free but allowed charging for distribution.

otherme123 2y ago

I installed my first linux in 1996. It came in a CD with a computer magazine: a free OS. That was huge, for me at least. Said CDs were filled with shareware software like winzip, that you had to buy or crack to use at 100%. Meanwhile there was this thing called Linux, for free, that included a web server, ftp, firewall, a free C compiler, that thing called latex that produced beautiful documents... The only thing it required from you was to sacrifice a bit of confort in the UI, and a bit of extra effort to get better results. I didn't heard about Minix until mid 2000's maybe, and it was like an old legend of an allegedly better-than-linux OS that failed because people are dumb.

abetusk 2y ago
1997-1998 was about the time I first installed Linux (slackware) from a stack of 3.5" floppy disks. By then, Linux had picked up enough momentum, which is why, I guess, you and I both had access to CD/floppy installation methods. The folklore around the Linux/Minix debate, for me, was that "working code wins" and either microkernel wasn't as beneficial as was claimed or through grit and elbow grease, Linux pushed through to viability. But now I wonder how true that narrative is. Could it have been that FOSS provided the boost in network effects for Linux that compounded its popularity and helped it soar past Minix? Was Minix hampered by Tanenbaum gatekeeping the software and refusal to cede copyright control? To me, the licensing seems pretty important as, even if the boost to adoption was small, it could have compounding network effects that helped with popularity. I just never heard this argument before so I wonder how true it is, if at all.
- lproven 2y ago
  > The folklore around the Linux/Minix debate, for me, was that "working code wins" and either microkernel wasn't as beneficial as was claimed Hang on. That does not work. You need to be careful about the timeline here. Linus worked with and built the very early versions of the Linux kernel on Minix 1. Minix 1 was not a microkernel, only directly supported 8088 and 8086 (and other architectures, but the point here is not 80286 or 80386, so no hardware memory management) and it was not FOSS. Minix 2 arrived in 1997, was FOSS, and supported the 80386, i.e. x86-32. Minix 3 was the first microkernel version and was not released until 2005. You are comparing original early-era Linux with a totally different version of Minix that didn't exist yet and wouldn't for well over a decade. In the early 1990s, the comparison was: Minix 1: source available, but not redistributable; 16-bit only, max 1MB of RAM, no hardware memory protection, and very limited. Linux 0.x to 1.x: FOSS, 32-bit, fully exploited 32-bit PCs. 4GB of RAM if you could afford it, but could use 4MB - 8MB for normal non-millionaire people.
  - abetusk 2y ago
    I'm pretty ignorant of the timeline and I'm only going off of some vague memory and what Wikipedia says. Note that the OP is from 1992, so Tanenbaum was arguing for micro-kernels well before the Minix 2 1997 release. From Wikipedia's entry on Minix 1.5 [0]: > MINIX 1.5, released in 1991, ... . There were also unofficial ports to Intel 386 PC compatibles (in 32-bit protected mode), ... I found an article online that dates from 1999 but referencing a comp.os.minix post from Tanenbaum from 1992 where Tanenbaum clearly states MINIX is a microkernel system [1]: > MINIX is a microkernel-based system. Further, I don't see any reference of Minix 2 being released as FOSS in 1997. Wikipedia claims Minix 2.0.3 released in May 2001 was the first version of MINIX released under a BSD-3 license [0]: > Version 2.0.3 was released in May 2001. It was the first version after MINIX had been relicensed under the BSD-3-Clause license, which was retroactively applied to all previous versions. From Wikipedia's entry on "History of Linux" [2]: > In 1991, ..., Linus Torvalds began a project that later became the Linux kernel. ... . Development was done on MINIX using the GNU C Compiler. > On 25 August 1991, he [Linus torvalds] ... announced ... in another posting to the comp.os.minix newsgroup > PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, ... So, I don't really know if Tanenbaum was talking "in theory" about where best to allocate effort and/or if Minix 1/2 were actually a microkernel design, but it seems so. I'm also pretty ignorant of whether Minix 1/2 could be used on 80286 or 80386 chips. Though I'm very fuzzy on the details it does seem like the sentiment remains. It looks like Torvalds work on Linux was, either directly or in large part, due to the restrictive licensing of Minix [3]: > Frustrated by the licensing of Minix, which at the time limited it to educational use only, he began to work on his operating system kernel, which eventually became the Linux kernel. In a 1997 interview, Torvalds says: > Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#MINIX_1.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#MINIX_1.5 [1] https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/appa.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Creation [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20070826212454/http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070826212454/http://www.tlug.j...

LeFantome 2y ago

It is not at all subtle. If Minix was free, Linus may never Have written Linux at all. It cost $50 (as I recall). Linus hated that. The first Linux license was that you could not charge for Linux. As it grew in popularity, people wanted to be able to charge for media (to cover their costs). So, Linus switched to the GPL which kept the code free but allowed charging for distribution.