On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> 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 [
​
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.