Absolutely. Bill Jolitiz wrote the original version of fdisk with a very small assist from
me. I used to keep a 33m dos partition on my system if for no other reason than the diags
all ran on dos
Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite.
On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:56 PM, William Pechter
Actually, IIRC, you could use fdisk to split up drives in FreeBSD... I think I did that
in the 1.02 days...
The problem is the semantics of slices and partitions. Also *BSD, I recall, had to boot
from a primary partition. I don't know if lilo cared and grub2 sure doesn't.
Sent from pechter(a)gmail.com
From: Adam Thornton <athornton(a)gmail.com>
To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Sent: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:28
Subject: Re: [TUHS] If not Linux, then what?
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
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
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.
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:08 PM Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 19:14, Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)kilonet.net> wrote:
>> 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
> - 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
> 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?"