4 ms·

In an alternate universe where Linus Torvalds did not exist, I think one of the other free Unix clones would have gained more traction and filled that niche in

by IvyMike 13y ago

In an alternate universe where Linus Torvalds did not exist, I think one of the other free Unix clones would have gained more traction and filled that niche in the ecosystem. It would be interesting to peek into the universe where FreeBSD really struck it big. (And I'd also like to see the universe where Gnu HURD took over, although that seems a lot less likely.)

atmosx 13y ago
Linus at an interview said that "If I didn't create Linux in 1992, by 1993 someone else would have done it. Linux was created because the time was right, the GNU ecosystem was there. The kernel was the missing part". Of course this is kind of speculation on one hand, but there was the Hurd project which might have taken off, or someone else could really have created something similar a year later, if it did not exist. BSD had it's licensing issues, which today seems more liberating - most programmers seem to embrace it - but in 1992 was seen a free ride license which is something most Linux developers did not like. That's why Linux grew so much,. Saying that FreeBSD would taken that niche seems a little bit off IMHO.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Hurd now as then simply lacks the technical and performance chops to cut it. Conceptually it's interesting, but this is a place where RMS's instincts lead him down the very wrong path.
dredmorbius 13y ago
I think one of the other free Unix clones would have gained more traction Almost certainly, and also almost certainly FreeBSD. The UNIX Wars did more than anything to ensure that this didn't happen, though. There's still a bit of an open question. Linux benefited over FreeBSD not only in not having a lawsuit looming over it, but in that its development process was far more open. Though it's arguable that FreeBSD is more stable (and for much of the 1990s had a superior networking stack -- hence its adoption at such shops as Yahoo), ultimately it was the addition of features, and drivers, to Linux which very much ensured its take-off, as well as the numerous distros, each of which had a slightly different focus (and often significantly different package management systems), some of which proved more attractive than others. I find it interesting that of the two primary x86 unices, the more open one (Linux) beat FreeBSD, and of the Linux distros, a noncommercial and generally open one (Debian and variants) seems to be slowly trouncing the more closed corporate variant (Red Hat).

by IvyMike 13y ago

atmosx 13y ago

Linus at an interview said that "If I didn't create Linux in 1992, by 1993 someone else would have done it. Linux was created because the time was right, the GNU ecosystem was there. The kernel was the missing part". Of course this is kind of speculation on one hand, but there was the Hurd project which might have taken off, or someone else could really have created something similar a year later, if it did not exist. BSD had it's licensing issues, which today seems more liberating - most programmers seem to embrace it - but in 1992 was seen a free ride license which is something most Linux developers did not like. That's why Linux grew so much,. Saying that FreeBSD would taken that niche seems a little bit off IMHO.

dredmorbius 13y ago
Hurd now as then simply lacks the technical and performance chops to cut it. Conceptually it's interesting, but this is a place where RMS's instincts lead him down the very wrong path.

dredmorbius 13y ago

I think one of the other free Unix clones would have gained more traction Almost certainly, and also almost certainly FreeBSD. The UNIX Wars did more than anything to ensure that this didn't happen, though. There's still a bit of an open question. Linux benefited over FreeBSD not only in not having a lawsuit looming over it, but in that its development process was far more open. Though it's arguable that FreeBSD is more stable (and for much of the 1990s had a superior networking stack -- hence its adoption at such shops as Yahoo), ultimately it was the addition of features, and drivers, to Linux which very much ensured its take-off, as well as the numerous distros, each of which had a slightly different focus (and often significantly different package management systems), some of which proved more attractive than others. I find it interesting that of the two primary x86 unices, the more open one (Linux) beat FreeBSD, and of the Linux distros, a noncommercial and generally open one (Debian and variants) seems to be slowly trouncing the more closed corporate variant (Red Hat).