Re: Andrew Tanenbaum AP story

Marshall Spight wrote:

> "Dan" <guntermann_at_verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:jcvhd.9820$vJ.253_at_trnddc02...

>>
>> Obviously Linux wasn't obsolete...

...and yet the use of this "obsolete" design continues to grow faster than any other system out there, including BSD.

The standard rebuttal to the "obsolete" or "inferior" argument is that the definitions are too narrow.

Looking at the entire picture, something cannot be "superior" if it is encumbered by personalities, licensing, barriers to entry, or other items not directly tied to the pure technical matters. The argument is that the technology cannot be separated from its culture. If cannot break out of its own culture, it is just plain not superior to anything. It is at best a pet project.

So compare Linus to RMS and you see that the HURD kernel loses to Linux on personality. Compare Linux to BSD and you have one main tree compared to three (more?), and so the new hacker is led to the simpler case.

Comparing the HURD to the monolithic Linux kernel is an easy thing to do. For almost ten years the question was, "Do you want the 'inferior' kernel I can install today or the 'superior' one that does not exist?"

The combination of licensing, personality, and the pure simplicity of the monolithic design gave Linux the early lead and now its got the momentum. It will be rendered obsolete when somebody beats that combination.

This does not mean Linux is "better" than BSD any more than it means that Linux is obsolete. Hopefully it is just meant to show that such terms have little meaning.

There is more to good technology than good technology, no?

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me