←back to thread

304 points Bogdanp | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.023s | source | bottom
Show context
lordleft ◴[] No.45241113[source]
I will never not find this kind of project incredibly impressive. It’s interesting to think that Linux, after all, is really just the kernel — and yet getting that work done paved the way to getting an open source version of Unix installed on billions of machines. Great stuff!
replies(4): >>45241149 #>>45241727 #>>45241785 #>>45241926 #
1. hollerith ◴[] No.45241149[source]
It is equally valid to say that Stallman's starting to write a C compiler and Unix utilities (in 1984 whereas the Linux project started in late 1991) paved the way to getting an open source version of Unix installed on billions of machines.
replies(2): >>45241551 #>>45242627 #
2. kimixa ◴[] No.45241551[source]
I agree - there's a number of kernels that were "open source" and released at a similar time enough time to linux (e.g. 386BSD in '92) that I could see any of those winning the "community battle" and taking that space instead, but no real credible "development toolchain" equivalent until decades later.

Though I'm unsure how differing licenses might have affected this - I suspect that really early in it's development the "copyleft" nature of the GPL Linux didn't make as much of a difference, as from what I remember most commercial uses of Linux didn't come until it had already gained significant momentum.

replies(2): >>45241601 #>>45241723 #
3. ◴[] No.45241601[source]
4. treyd ◴[] No.45241723[source]
The copyleft nature was essential to good driver support. It set it up such that for corporations making drivers the easiest path was to get the driver upstreamed. There was a bunch of hoops they could have gone through to avoid that (as many did, like Nvidia) but that became a sorta-default.

Copyleft encourages a collaborative relationship between entities because it makes trying to play it close to the chest with IP involve more legal effort (if it's possible at all).

replies(1): >>45241813 #
5. kimixa ◴[] No.45241813{3}[source]
Yes, I can see that stalling development as (at best) it turns into a pile of private forks rather than a cohesive project, but from what I remember that was already after Linux had "won" the "Open Source Kernel" race.

Commercial support for Linux was... Sparse... before the early 2000s.

6. Quekid5 ◴[] No.45242627[source]
> [Stallman/GNU] getting an open source version of Unix installed on billions of machines.

Agreed, funnily enough GNU tools/compilers also ended up getting installed on a lot of proprietary UNIXes because proprietary UNIX was mostly shit (in user space!). At least most of the ones I had the misfortune to have to work on.

replies(1): >>45243186 #
7. hollerith ◴[] No.45243186[source]
I first came across GNU tools on NeXTSTEP, which wasn't too bad.

If Stallman had started with a kernel, there would be very few people who had the legal right to run any utilities or apps on the new kernel whereas GNU's utilities and apps (e.g., Emacs) were immediately useful (i.e., without breaking any copyright law or violating any software license) to a large population, namely, anyone with an account on a proprietary Unix system, which explains why Stallman chose to start with the userland.

replies(1): >>45247533 #
8. amszmidt ◴[] No.45247533{3}[source]

    > If Stallman had started with a kernel, there would be very few people who had the legal right to run any utilities or apps on the new kernel
That is really not true, one of the most important things when it comes to the GNU project and the whole Free Software movement is the ability to run _any_ program, be it non-free software or free software. This has been parroted for more than 40 years now ...