[TUHS] SunOS vs Linux
wes.parish at paradise.net.nz
Mon Jan 9 08:52:55 AEST 2017
I remember reading the same. I just can't remember where I read it. I'll try to track it down.
Quoting Angus Robinson <angus at fairhaven.za.net>:
> I think at one point Linus said that if he had known or if 386bsd was
> available he would not have started Linux
> (If I remember correctly)
> On 6 Jan 2017 05:57, "Dan Cross" <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:17 AM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> Larry, had Sun open sourced SunOS, as you fought so hard to make
> >>> Linux might not have happened as it did. SunOS was really good.
> Chalk up
> >>> another win for ATT!
> >> âFWIW: I disagreeâ. For details look at my discussion of
> >> Linux in RUST
> >> on quora. But a quick point is this .... Linux original took off (and
> >> successful) not because of GPL, but in spite of it and later the GPL
> >> help it. But it was not the GPL per say that made Linux vs BSD vs
> SunOS et
> >> al.
> >> What made Linux happen was the BSDi/UCB vs AT&T case. At the time, a
> >> lot of hackers (myself included) thought the case was about
> >> It was not, it was about *trade secret* and the ideas around UNIX. *
> >> i.e.* folks like, we "mentally contaminated" with the AT&T
> >> Property.
> >> When the case came, folks like me that were running 386BSD which
> >> later begat FreeBSD et al, got scared. At that time, *BSD (and
> >> were much farther along in the development and stability. But ....
> may of
> >> us hought Linux would insulate us from losing UNIX on cheap HW
> >> their was not AT&T copyrighted code in it. Sadly, the truth is that
> >> AT&T had won the case, *all UNIX-like systems* would have had to be
> >> removed from the market in the USA and EU [NATO-allies for sure].
> >> That said, the fact the *BSD and Linux were in the wild, would have
> >> it hard to enforce and at a "Free" (as in beer) price it may have
> been hard
> >> to make it stick. But that it was a misunderstanding of legal thing
> >> made Linux "valuable" to us, not the implementation.
> >> If SunOS has been available, it would not have been any different.
> >> would have been thought of based on the AT&T IP, but trade secret
> >> original copyright.
> > Yes, it seems in retrospect that USL v BSDi basically killed Unix (in
> > sense that Linux is not a blood-relative of Unix). I remember someone
> > quipping towards the late 90s, "the Unix wars are over. Linux won."
> > Perhaps an interesting area of speculation is, "what would the world
> > looked like if USL v BSDi hadn't happened *and* SunOS was opened to
> > world?" I think in that parallel universe, Linux wouldn't have made
> > particularly far: absent the legal angle, what would the incentive had
> > to work on something that was striving to basically be Unix, when
> > good Unix was already available?
> > Ah well.
> > - Dan C.
"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn
More information about the TUHS