I agree of not doing editorial changes to titles. But if a title is not good enough, I usually add my own context or information after it.

Or like in Hacker News, they put the date when it's old stuff (something like "Linux is obsolete (1992)")

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.

Statistics schmatistics. Like sure, one can say that Minix is used in microcontrollers and all around the world and thus the usage ratio between Linux and Minix is about 3% vs 98%; but one could also argue that these microcontrollers and firmwares are not actually "used" by someone, they are just middleware and accessory just in the same way we don't count count LED headlights separately for tallies on driving (and pedestrian) culture, and then we can firmly say that ratio is now 3% to ~0%.

Inhowfar it can be actually called MINIX in there. If you have a minimalistic 8-bit processor working as a boot processor for an Intel or AMD CPU, they don't implement features like virtual memory down there.

I believe it is more like a MINIX-ish system down there.

I did, too. But for me, that "couple of years" is more than 30. And even back then, it was already "legacy".