From: Adam Thornton <athornton@gmail.com>
To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] If not Linux, then what?
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:09:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP2nic0tvnaiNpny9pap=DDr58iR-A+O=6rVBL21XWErS_RrTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13e8e297-0b27-ac95-8fd4-e2a9b28d0b64@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9412 bytes --]
This was pre-SLS as well. I remember vividly how excited I was when it
came out in mid-92 and how much like cheating it was. A little googling
and I'm sure I used the HJ Lu diskettes. I don't actually remember
hand-editing the MBR but, well, I probably did.
Adam
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:01 PM William Pechter <pechter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/28/2019 6:48 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:
>
> It probably was the partition/slice confusion that, well, confused me,
> then. My experience, such as it was, was from the DOS world.
>
> As was mine mostly 8-) I remember it from the PITA it was to translate in
> my head. Unix folks looked at partitions as /dev/dsk/0s0->0s7 (I think 7
> was the SVR2 maximum. The "Unix" partitions fit inside the FDISK partition
> or dos slice... The dos guys looked at it kind of like the fdisk space
> disk0 partition 3 (for example) was the partition and then the BSD folks
> broke that in to /dev/sd0a /dev/sd0b /dev/sd0c etc.
>
> I did a little SunOS and SysV along with Dos and Windows and could make
> them coexist as long as there was an open primary dos partition.
>
>
>
> Although the period I am thinking of was way pre-slackware. You had a
> boot floppy and a root floppy and that was about it, I think. I think the
> kernel had MFM/RLL disk drivers for an ISA bus interface? I remember that
> I could boot the thing on the MCA machines in the lab but not actually
> install it (even had I been allowed to), and I think installation was
> pretty much fdisk/mkfs, extract the tarball...I don't remember how you
> installed the bootloader...which I guess was already LILO at that point?
> Probably just dding the bootsector to the first physical sector of the
> disk? Version 0.08 or so, maybe?
>
>
> Sounds like SLS -- Soft Landing System -- which later was pretty much
> replaced with Slackware. I used the early MCA stuff on PS/2's at IBM for a
> while. Most of the PS/2 stuff we had was SCSI. The boot loader was lilo.
> It could go in the partition space or disk mbr. See:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-bootload/index.html
>
>
> It was quite a while ago, and I was drunk for most of college,
> so....memory is imprecise at best.
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:28 PM Clem cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
>> Not true 386BSD used fdisk. It shared the disk just fine. In fact I
>> liked the way it sliced the disk much better than Slackware in those days.
>>
>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not
>> quite.
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Adam Thornton <athornton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was an ardent OS/2 supporter for a long time. Sure, IBM's anemic
>> marketing, and their close-to-outright-hostility to 3rd-party developers
>> didn't help. But what killed it, really, was how damn good its 16-bit
>> support was. It *was* a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than
>> 3.11fW. So no one wrote to the relatively tiny market of 32-bit OS/2.
>>
>> I fear that had Linux not made the leap, MS might well have won. It's
>> largely the AOL-fuelled explosion of popularity of the Internet and Windows
>> ignoring same until too late that opened the door enough for Linux to jam
>> its foot in.
>>
>> Hurd was, by the time of the '386 Unix Wars and early Linux, clearly not
>> going to be a contender, I guess because it was about cool research
>> features rather than running user-facing code. I kept waiting for a usable
>> kernel to go with what Linux had already shown was a quite decent
>> userspace, but eventually had better things to do with my life (like chase
>> BeOS). It was like waiting for Perl 6--it missed its moment.
>>
>> Plan 9 and Amoeba were both really nifty. I never used Sprite.
>> Neither one of them had much of a chance in the real world. Much like Unix
>> itself, Linux's worse-is-better approach really worked.
>>
>> I have a hypothesis about Linux's ascendance too, which is a personal
>> anecdote I am inflating to the status of hypothesis. As I recall, the
>> *BSDs for 386 all assumed they owned the hard disk. Like, the whole
>> thing. You couldn't, at least in 1992, create a multiboot system--or at
>> least it was my strong impression you could not. I was an undergrad. I
>> had one '386 at my disposal, with one hard disk, and, hey, I needed DOS and
>> Windows to write my papers (I don't know about you, but I wanted to write
>> in my room, where I could have my references at hand and be reasonably
>> undisturbed; sure Framemaker was a much better setup than Word For Windows
>> 1.2 but having to use it in the computer lab made it a nonstarter for me).
>> Papers, and, well, to play games. Sure, that too.
>>
>> Linux let me defragment my drive, non-destructively repartition it, and
>> create a dual-boot system, so that I could both use the computer for school
>> and screw around on Linux. I'm probably not the only person for whom this
>> was a decisive factor.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:08 PM Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 19:14, Arthur Krewat <krewat@kilonet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/08/26/0051234/celebrating-the-28th-anniversary-of-the-linux-kernel
>>>>
>>>> Leaving licensing and copyright issues out of this mental exercise,
>>>> what
>>>> would we have now if it wasn't for Linux? Not what you'd WANT it to be,
>>>> although that can add to the discussion, but what WOULD it be?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking as a proponent of Linux. If anything, I was dragged
>>>> kicking and screaming into the current day and have begrudgingly ceded
>>>> my server space to Linux.
>>>>
>>>> But if not for Linux, would it be BSD? A System V variant? Or (the
>>>> horror) Windows NT?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can make a firm "dunno" sound :-)
>>>
>>> Some facts can come together to point away from a number of
>>> possibilities...
>>>
>>> - If you look at the number of hobbyist "Unix homages" that emerged at
>>> around that time, it's clear that there was a sizable community of
>>> interested folk willing to build their own thing, and that weren't
>>> interested in Windows NT. (Nay, one should put that more strongly... That
>>> had their minds set on something NOT from Microsoft.) So I think we can
>>> cross Windows NT off the list.
>>>
>>> - OS/2 should briefly come on the list. It was likable in many ways, if
>>> only IBM had actually supported it... But it suffers from something of the
>>> same problem as Windows NT; there were a lot of folk that were only
>>> slightly less despising of IBM at the time than of Microsoft.
>>>
>>> - Hurd was imagined to be the next thing...
>>>
>>> To borrow from my cookie file...
>>>
>>> "Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from
>>> now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M
>>> SPARCstation-5." -- Andrew Tanenbaum, 1992.
>>> %
>>> "You'll be rid of most of us when BSD-detox or GNU comes out, which
>>> should happen in the next few months (yeah, right)." -- Richard Tobin,
>>> 1992. [BSD did follow within a year]
>>> %
>>> "I am aware of the benefits of a micro kernel approach. However, the
>>> fact remains that Linux is here, and GNU isn't --- and people have
>>> been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has been working on
>>> Linux." -- Ted T'so, 1992.
>>>
>>> Ted has been on this thread, and should be amused (and slightly
>>> disturbed!) that his old statements are being held here and there, ready to
>>> trot out :-).
>>>
>>> In the absence of Linux, perhaps hackers would have flocked to Hurd, but
>>> there was enough going on that there was plenty of room for them to have
>>> done so anyways.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what to blame on whatever happened post-1992, though I'd
>>> put some on Microsoft Research having taken the wind out of Mach's sails by
>>> hiring off a bunch of the relevant folk. In order for Hurd to "make it,"
>>> Mach has to "make it," too, and it looked like they were depending on CMU
>>> to be behind that. (I'm not sure I'm right about that; happy to hear a
>>> better story.)
>>>
>>> Anyway, Hurd *might* have been a "next thing," and I don't think the
>>> popularity of Linux was enough to have completely taken wind out of its
>>> sails, given that there's the dozens of "Unix homages" out there.
>>>
>>> - I'd like to imagine Plan 9 being an alternative, but it was "properly
>>> commercial" for a goodly long time (hence not amenable to attaching waves
>>> of hackers to it to add their favorite device drivers), and was never taken
>>> as a serious answer. Many of us had admired it from afar via the Dr Dobbs
>>> Journal issue (when was that? mid or late '90s?) but only from afar.
>>>
>>> - FreeBSD is the single best answer I can throw up as a possibility, as
>>> it was the one actively targeting 80386 hardware. And that had the big
>>> risk of the AT&T lawsuit lurking over it, so had that gone in a different
>>> direction, then that is a branch sadly easily trimmed.
>>>
>>> If we lop both Linux and FreeBSD off the list of possibilities, I don't
>>> imagine Windows NT or OS/2 bubble to the top, instead, a critical mass
>>> would have stood behind ... something else, I'd think. I don't know which
>>> to suggest.
>>> --
>>> When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
>>> question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
>>>
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18094 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-28 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-26 23:13 Arthur Krewat
2019-08-26 23:27 ` Warner Losh
2019-08-26 23:37 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-26 23:56 ` William Pechter
2019-08-27 0:19 ` Arthur Krewat
2019-08-27 0:30 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 0:58 ` Rob Pike
2019-08-27 1:06 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-27 2:53 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 9:47 ` Rob Pike
2019-08-27 7:47 ` arnold
2019-08-27 16:05 ` [TUHS] Running v10 Angelo Papenhoff
2019-08-27 16:27 ` Henry Bent
2019-08-28 4:22 ` Jason Stevens
2019-08-28 7:34 ` Angelo Papenhoff
2019-08-28 16:46 ` Henry Bent
2019-08-27 0:59 ` [TUHS] If not Linux, then what? Arthur Krewat
2019-08-27 1:26 ` Dan Cross
2019-08-27 2:45 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 3:14 ` Arthur Krewat
2019-08-27 14:55 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 22:30 ` George Michaelson
2019-08-27 22:40 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 22:46 ` George Michaelson
2019-08-27 22:59 ` [TUHS] [SPAM] " Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 23:10 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole
2019-08-28 0:07 ` George Michaelson
2019-08-28 3:22 ` [TUHS] [SPAM] " Rob Pike
2019-08-28 3:25 ` Rob Pike
2019-08-28 4:05 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-28 13:52 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 14:31 ` [TUHS] " Larry McVoy
2019-08-28 14:57 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 6:19 ` Wesley Parish
2019-08-28 6:30 ` Peter Jeremy
2019-08-28 11:05 ` Jason Stevens
2019-08-28 11:11 ` Arrigo Triulzi
2019-08-28 14:04 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 16:34 ` Henry Bent
2019-08-28 17:32 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-28 17:51 ` Jon Forrest
2019-08-28 18:56 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 20:23 ` Arrigo Triulzi
2019-08-29 3:24 ` Lawrence Stewart
2019-08-29 10:55 ` Tony Finch
2019-08-28 13:57 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 12:46 ` Warner Losh
2019-08-27 23:16 ` Bakul Shah
2019-08-27 23:33 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-28 0:21 ` Bakul Shah
2019-08-28 1:21 ` Arthur Krewat
2019-08-28 1:46 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 0:48 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-27 1:25 ` Gregg Levine
2019-08-27 2:16 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-08-27 2:39 ` Larry McVoy
2019-08-27 5:54 ` Adam Thornton
2019-08-27 6:05 ` Gregg Levine
2019-08-27 1:17 ` Dan Cross
2019-08-28 3:53 ` Charles H. Sauer
2019-08-28 4:30 ` Jason Stevens
2019-08-28 9:36 ` Angus Robinson
2019-08-28 9:50 ` Michael Kjörling
2019-08-28 10:48 ` arnold
2019-08-28 14:10 ` Earl Baugh
2019-08-28 14:55 ` Clem Cole
2019-08-28 14:22 ` Charles H Sauer
2019-08-28 15:00 ` Steve Nickolas
2019-08-28 15:37 ` Richard Salz
2019-08-28 19:54 ` Peter Jeremy
2019-08-28 20:05 ` Christopher Browne
2019-08-28 20:07 ` Christopher Browne
2019-08-28 20:27 ` Adam Thornton
2019-08-28 20:56 ` William Pechter
2019-08-28 22:24 ` Clem cole
2019-08-28 22:27 ` William Pechter
2019-08-28 22:53 ` Arthur Krewat
2019-08-29 18:40 ` Nemo Nusquam
2019-08-29 19:18 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2019-08-28 22:28 ` Clem cole
2019-08-28 22:48 ` Adam Thornton
2019-08-28 23:01 ` William Pechter
2019-08-28 23:09 ` Adam Thornton [this message]
2019-08-29 6:37 ` Wesley Parish
2019-08-28 23:04 ` Gregg Levine
2019-08-29 11:12 ` Tony Finch
2019-08-28 23:19 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-08-29 13:31 ` A. P. Garcia
2019-08-29 13:55 ` Arthur Krewat
2019-08-29 15:54 ` Thomas Paulsen
2019-08-29 19:19 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2019-08-31 1:35 ` Dave Horsfall
2019-08-31 15:14 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2019-08-31 16:58 ` Christopher Browne
2019-08-31 21:20 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-08-28 21:02 ` Thomas Paulsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAP2nic0tvnaiNpny9pap=DDr58iR-A+O=6rVBL21XWErS_RrTQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=athornton@gmail.com \
--cc=tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).