Re: [TUHS] H.J. Lu Bootable Root & Base System disks

[Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
> On 7/17/20 12:04 AM, Petr Tit?ra wrote:
> >No, I consider my effort to reconstruct Linux libc release history as off
> >topic communication.
> 
> Interesting.  Where can I learn more about your work efforts?
> 
> >If someone think otherwise I would be wery glad.
> 
> I'm decidedly not an authority on the matter.  But I think there are some in
> the global Unix community that shun Linux, and things (directly) related to
> it because it's not a Unix descended from AT&T.  Hence my comment in my
> original post.
> 
> I would love to find a forum for Linux history like TUHS is for Unix
> history.

Me too.  For the record, I'm fine with Linux on this list but it is
probably up to Warren to decide.

I came from BSD roots, SunOS, but I've been using Linux since maybe 
1994 or 95 as my daily desktop/laptop (and yes, it was pretty sketchy
back then, I've been playing with Linux since before it had TCP/IP,
it's gotten a lot better).

I think there are some legit complaints about Linux but a lot of those
could be said about BSD.  Bell Labs Unix was very terse, they took less
is more as far as you can.  Linux was far more pragmatic, the Linux
/proc is nothing like AT&T /proc, Linux is all strings and has tons
of info and knobs that /proc didn't have.  AT&T /proc is about processes
and Linux /proc is a generic bunghole where you can see everything and
control everything.  It's a bit much but in general, I like the Linux
/proc, it's pleasant being able to poke around without having the write
a C program to grovel through the binary data structures.

That said, /proc came from the time of 100mhz processors, the idea that
you were going to parse all those strings probably gave people heartburn
then.  Now it is fine.