On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Clem Cole wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > >> So there is a question here, though, and I'm curious to see what others >> who >> were closer to the action think. Why _did_ Linux succeed, and not a Unix >> derivative? (Is there any work which looks at this question? Some Linux >> history? If not, there should be.) >> > > ​I​'ve thought and written a bit about this question a bit [ > Would it be possible/advantageous to rewrite the Linux kernel in Rust when > the language is stable? > > & > Why did Unix succeed and not Multics > ] ​ > ​ > and I'll not repeat all of here but > ​as one of the people that did switch from 386BSD to linux at the time, > the reason for me was purely because of the AT&T/BSDi case. You are > right, I wanted a "free" (i.e. very inexpensive) UNIX for the 386 and the > "big guns"​ were not going to give it. I thought we had it the 386 port > BSD which I had helped in a small way to create. > > ​But I like, most hackers of the day, misunderstood incorrectly​ the case > to be about *trade secret *and the all based around the 1956 consent > decree, IBM vs AT&T; telephones and the computers. I was worried AT&T > would win because it was going to hard to cleaim that that the BSD code was > not a derivative work of the AT&T *copyright code base *(not > understanding the *trade secret* and the *copyright* difference > mattered). > > So...I switched to Linux *not because I thought it was "better"* - in > fact, I b*tched (and still do) about many gratuitous differences, but as I > knew that we needed something for "consumer" HW (which was bring driven by > the WINTEL economics), and I was willing to use the "lessor" technology > (Linux) because it was "good enough" and gave me what I needed (UNIX on a > PC/386). I thought (incorrectly) somehow original Linux's European > authorship was going to protect me and my fellow hackers ever though it was > not as good as my beloved BSD system. > > Simple put - using Christiansen's theories: Linux "won" because: > > - it was "good enough", > - had a lot of people behind it that valued that was there and > invested in making it "better", and > - the economics of the platform (PC/386 - WINTEL etc) was on the > fastest grow curve [and its Christiansen's economic disruption was > displacing the Mini & Workstation]. > > > BTW: at the time, I argued with the Roger Gourd and the OSF folks, that if > they released (sold) the OSF/1 RI uK which had not AT&T technology in it > (again thinking Copyright not Trade Secret); I was suggesting $100/copy > there was a market for it. I just could not get them interested. > > Sun has done the RoadRunner and had their 386 port of Solaris; but again. > All the "UNIX" folks were still interested in pushing out "iron" so were > blind to the WINTEL economic disruption. > > Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda .... sigh > If I may, I think there was an additional thing at play: Linux was essentially Unix. Linux "won" because people wanted low-cost or free (as in gratis) Unix with source that could run on modest commodity hardware, and Unix wasn't available at a price point that was reasonable for most individuals (certainly not with source). The people working on successor systems weren't trying to reinvent Unix: they were working on new systems that weren't Unix, but that's not what people wanted: Unix was good enough and people were familiar and comfortable with it and that's what they wanted. So Linux comes along and it's basically a "simplest possible solution" Unix, freely available, runs on a PC, comes with source, and wasn't mired in a lawsuit brought by a major US company. It was the right thing in the right place at the right time. I think there's a network effect that blinds a lot of folks to this reality. Most of the folks on this list had access to Unix source and, with no disrespect intended, it's easy to lose sight of what a big deal that was. But unless you were in a position to already have access to it, it was remarkably difficult to come by. Linux filled a gap that a lot of people were looking to have filled. - Dan C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: