On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:20, you wrote:
[...] > > Let's assume Linux didn't exist. What would we have? > A properly working HURD, and quite possibly be better off for it. The fact that Linux is the one who made it may be a historical accident. The fact that a freely available Unix-like for the PC's emerged in the early '90s is IMHO much less so. Even Linus said it that he started the development because in 1991 he could AFFORD a 386 (my capitalization). I.e.: a. AFAIK the 386 was first produced in Nov or Dec 1987. But for several years is was too expensive for personal PC's, it was used mainly in servers. b. The 386 was the first Intel CPU with a real MMU c. The 386 begun to be affordable for the desktop only in early '90s Motorola may have had a MMU earlier (don't know) but anyway it was basically trapped inside the Apple: very expensive and in particular totally closed. This combination: cheap and powerful CPU on an "open" platform and in the hands of many is what triggered the birth of an free OS. IMHO this was a historical force at play, not an accident. Also the groundbreaking work done by the FSF in the late '80s should not be neglected. I know personally somebody else who started a similar project (but years later, for several reasons): http://www.hulubei.net/tudor/thix/ It is very likely that similar projects have started in some other places and also likely that many _may_ have started if Linux wouldn't have caught on. In other words: this kind of project was floating in the air, awaiting just a "trigger". Cheers, -- Ryurick M. Hristev mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Manager University of Canterbury, Physics & Astronomy Dept., New Zealand
