[TUHS] On the origins of Linux - "an academic question"
Larry McVoy
lm at mcvoy.com
Sun Jan 19 01:30:00 AEST 2020
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:50:51PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
+1 to everything Ted said, that's how I remember it as well. I knew
about both Linux and 386BSD and while 386BSD felt very familiar to
a SunOS guy, there was something special about Linux. For a while I
played with both, 386BSD was sort of better in that it had networking,
but like Ted, my network was a modem and TCP over a modem wasn't pleasant.
So Linux won out and eventually networked just fine.
> At the time when Linus announced his creation (not yet named) on
> comp.os.minix in August 1991, it was already self-hosting. And that
> happened pretty quickly; he first started working on the project in
> June or July.
>
> Around the end of 1991, I had added Job Control (implemented from
> POSIX.1 as a the specification), so we could put jobs in the
> background. In 1992 X Windows was ported to Linux. Networking
> support followed shortly thereafter.
>
> > So all in all.. As I remember it, there was never really a decision to 'make
> > this great new OS!'.. It kinda happened with right place, right time, right
> > people, etc.
>
> In the super-early days (late 1991, early 1992), those of us who
> worked on it just wanted a "something Unix-like" that we could run at
> home (my first computer was a 40 MHz 386 with 16 MB of memory). This
> was before the AT&T/BSD Lawsuit (which was in 1992) and while Jolitz
> may have been demonstrating 386BSD in private, I was certainly never
> aware of it --- and Linus was publishing new versions every few days
> on an ftp site. We'd send patches, and in less than a week, there'd
> be a new release dropped that we could download.
>
> So the argument, "Linus would have never started on Linux if itT
> weren't for the AT&T Lawsuit" I don't think fits with the timeline.
> Development was very fast paced, and so it was *fun*. And at least
> for me, the lacking of networking during the early days didn't bother
> me much, since I didn't have networking at home. (I didn't have
> grounded outlets, either, in my 3 people for $1050/month apartment.
> Each leg was 50-60V to ground, and the wiring was cloth wrapped, and
> was either steel or aluminum; I never did figured out which....)
> Using zmodem over a 2400 bps modem was way more efficient than PPP, so
> even once we had networking, I didn't always bring up pppd. And the
> most common way I would download source was using set of 1.44 MB
> floppies and a station wagon (literally; I was driving a Corolla wagon).
>
> During those early days, the fact that Linux was more "primitive" than
> BSD may have been an advantage, since it sources was small, and
> release engineering is simple when you only support one architecture.
>
> The other things I noticed was that because we didn't have the weight
> of the Unix/BSD legacy, we were more free to experiment. Bruce Evans
> was working on the serial driver for FreeBSD, and I was working on the
> serial driver for Linux, and we had a friendly competition to see who
> could get better throughput using the very primitive 8250 and later
> 16550 UART. The figure of merit we were using was the CPU overhead of
> a C-Kermit file transfer over two RS-232 ports connected via a
> loopback cable. We'd compare notes to see how we could make things
> better, me for Linux, and Bruce for FreeBSD, and it was *fun*.
> Eventually, it got to the point where I was making changes to the tty
> layer to further optimize things, and at that point Bruce reported
> that he couldn't do some of the optimizations, since it would have
> required changing the TTY layer that had been handed down from the
> Gods of Olympus^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H BSD and so it was nixed by his
> colleagues in FreeBSD land.
>
> In contrast, in Linux, people felt free to rip out and replace code if
> it would make things better. Depending on how you count things, the
> networking layer in Linux was ripped out and replaced three or four
> times in the space of as many years. Sure, the first version was
> pretty crappy, and was barely good enough for simple telnet
> connections. But things got better fast, because people were felt
> free to experiment.
>
> My personal belief is that it was this development velocity and
> freedom to experiment starting with a super simple base is what caused
> Linux to become very popular amongst the those who just wanted to play
> with kernel development. Compare and contrast Linus's willingness to
> accept patches from others and his turnaround time to get those
> patches into new releases with Bill Jolitz's 386BSD effort --- and I
> don't think you need the AT&T lawsuit to explain why Linux took off in
> 1991-1992. FreeBSD and NetBSD was started in 1993 because of the
> failure of Jolitz to accept patches in a timely fashion.
>
> - Ted
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
More information about the TUHS
mailing list