From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wes.parish@paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:52:55 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [TUHS] SunOS vs Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1483915975.5872c2c7af400@www.paradise.net.nz> I remember reading the same. I just can't remember where I read it. I'll try to track it down. Wesley Parish Quoting Angus Robinson : > I think at one point Linus said that if he had known or if 386bsd was > available he would not have started Linux > > (If I remember correctly) > > On 6 Jan 2017 05:57, "Dan Cross" wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:17 AM, ron minnich >> > > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Larry, had Sun open sourced SunOS, as you fought so hard to make > happen, > >>> Linux might not have happened as it did. SunOS was really good. > Chalk up > >>> another win for ATT! > >>> > >> > >> ​FWIW: I disagree​. For details look at my discussion of > rewriting > >> Linux in RUST > >> > Linux-kernel-in-Rust-when-the-language-is-stable> > >> on quora. But a quick point is this .... Linux original took off (and > was > >> successful) not because of GPL, but in spite of it and later the GPL > would > >> help it. But it was not the GPL per say that made Linux vs BSD vs > SunOS et > >> al. > >> > >> What made Linux happen was the BSDi/UCB vs AT&T case. At the time, a > >> lot of hackers (myself included) thought the case was about > *copyright*. > >> It was not, it was about *trade secret* and the ideas around UNIX. * > >> i.e.* folks like, we "mentally contaminated" with the AT&T > Intellectual > >> Property. > >> > >> When the case came, folks like me that were running 386BSD which > would > >> later begat FreeBSD et al, got scared. At that time, *BSD (and > SunOS) > >> were much farther along in the development and stability. But .... > may of > >> us hought Linux would insulate us from losing UNIX on cheap HW > because > >> their was not AT&T copyrighted code in it. Sadly, the truth is that > if > >> AT&T had won the case, *all UNIX-like systems* would have had to be > >> removed from the market in the USA and EU [NATO-allies for sure]. > >> > >> That said, the fact the *BSD and Linux were in the wild, would have > made > >> it hard to enforce and at a "Free" (as in beer) price it may have > been hard > >> to make it stick. But that it was a misunderstanding of legal thing > that > >> made Linux "valuable" to us, not the implementation. > >> > >> If SunOS has been available, it would not have been any different. > It > >> would have been thought of based on the AT&T IP, but trade secret > and > >> original copyright. > >> > > > > Yes, it seems in retrospect that USL v BSDi basically killed Unix (in > the > > sense that Linux is not a blood-relative of Unix). I remember someone > > quipping towards the late 90s, "the Unix wars are over. Linux won." > > > > Perhaps an interesting area of speculation is, "what would the world > have > > looked like if USL v BSDi hadn't happened *and* SunOS was opened to > the > > world?" I think in that parallel universe, Linux wouldn't have made > it > > particularly far: absent the legal angle, what would the incentive had > been > > to work on something that was striving to basically be Unix, when > really > > good Unix was already available? > > > > Ah well. > > > > - Dan C. > > > > > "I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor, Method for Guitar "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn