18
LINUX is obsolete (1992) (www.oreilly.com)
submitted 6 hours ago by to c/linux@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From comp.os.minix, January 29, 1992

Andrew Tanenbaum argues that Linux's monolithic kernel design is outdated. Torvalds responds, and an extraordinary debate about operating-system architecture follows.

Other sources:

https://www.linfo.org/obsolete.html

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 5 hours ago* (8 children)

The debate was interesting, and AFAIK the Linux kernel of today is kind of a mix between the 2 philosophies.

Sad to see this downvoted, it is an interesting aspect of Linux history, but I think maybe the headline should have reflected that, instead of looking like a statement of fact, which it definitely is not.
A parallel attempt to Linux at designing a micro kernel by the GNU team, has completely failed to gain traction.

What made Linux succeed however, is the adoption of the GNU license, this is what made the huge difference back in the day IMO. A community project that would always remain a community project.
And the Linux desktop today is what it is because the GNU license protected the integrity of Linux. AFAIK 80+% of the Linux desktop is based on GNU licensed code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

    I agree, the title should've been a question with a brief description.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

    Or like in Hacker News, they put the date when it's old stuff (something like "Linux is obsolete (1992)")

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    The debate back then was already Tanenbaums fight against his own Minix' obsolescence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    As I understand it Minix was quite popular among the scholars it was designed for.
    But Tannenbaum wouldn't make it "free", although it did come for free with the book and you could get the source code for free. It was not licensed to enable further developments by users.

    I stand by my claim that the problem was 100% the license. If Minix had used the GNU license, chances are pretty good that Minix could have become what Linux is today.

    But of courser there are other factors, like how Linux worked with GNU, which was already a nearly finished OS that just lacked a kernel. So adding the 2 together and voila you had a complete OS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •