top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 108 points 2 weeks ago (35 children)

"was called obsolete" - by 1 person who happened to be the developer of a competing OS/kernel.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

    Tanenbaum also believed that the Intel x86 was on the way out, the very CPU that Linux was hard-coded to run on. On the other hand, Minix was ready to adopt the upcoming RISC tech, which Tanenbaum believed would drive the x86 into extinction.

    A genuine Nostradamus, here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 49 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Windows was called obsolete (by me) years ago, and it's abandoned (by me) since mid 2024.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago

    In 1987, Bill Gates predicted in an interview that in 3 years time, 80% of new office systems would be based on OS/2, an operating system from IBM.

    The first release of Windows was in 1985, so that Computerworld interview was basically Bill Gates calling Windows obsolete.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    ... and millions of phones 🙃

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    I mean, if it were for novelty and "cleverness" then it would be Plan-9 (or BeOS) the one who shoulda take over. At the end of the day both Linux.and Minix are both following the UNIX model which even at that time it already was "obsolete". But reality is often more pragmatic

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Honestly plan9 is neat but it suffers from being incredibly stringy and so does Linux / unix.

    There's some new paradigms out there that probably need to be uncovered. Computers have way more processing capabilities then they did in the 90s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    More processing power means new paradigms are less likely to be uncovered, I think. The deficiencies of current designs are obscured, and maybe moot, due to the raw power the processors. There isn’t any real pressure to improve kernel design.

    All of the big current kernels (NT, Linux, XNU) are rooted in the i386 era. There’s certainly been a lot of changes in all of them but I don’t know if any have been completely re-architected.

    Might have to wait for some kind of completely new processor before we see completely new kernels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I mean, from what we learnt on university the "messiness" of a monolithic kernel seems "wrong" and a microkernel arch seems "better design". Once you spend a couple of decades in the workforce and opening your mind... I haven't seen a single "good modular design" that doesn't suck balls, super bloated and with many performance issues just to make it "pretty".

    So, while I'm not claiming it doesn't exist... I think is at the very least debatable.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Also, in 1992, when this article came out: you couldn't just walk into Walmart and get a CD with Debian or Slackware on it (still cant but thats another story). If you wanted the latest reliable word processor, email, hardware drivers and access to excel you basically had no choice but to slap down $100 for a Windows or OSx install. Only enthusiasts, academics and scientists had the bandwidth capacity to download and update an entire OS in 1992. CD burners themselves were $10 000 in 1992.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    TBF, in 1992 you might have had a hard time getting slackware at all since it was officially released in 1993.

    However, when I first used it around 1997, it was just a stack of floppies, no CD needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    That's painful. I had a proper purchased slackware 3.1 CD in 1997.

    I tried a two-diskette non-distro from "so much shareware 2". I think it was minted in 1993 and labelled Linux 0.99b

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Tanenbaum laid out why his hobby OS beat out Linus Torvalds' own pet project.

    The primary reason why Linux beat out Minix, is that Tannenbaum wouldn't allow Minix to win. There was a desperate need for an open source Unix-derived OS at the time, and many people wanted Minix to become that, but Tannenbaum wanted to keep it clean and educational. FreeBSD could have been it had Linus not created Linux, but he did so at exactly the right time for it to be embraced by the community and launched into the stratosphere.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    It's more to the credit of RMS, who was looking for a kernel to join GNU. And he picked Linux.

    1989 was when the GPL was written, so this followed a few years later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    There's no single individual that made it happen, but no doubt that Linus and RMS were the two biggest. Bear in mind that there were lots of additional contributors to the kernel and GNU as well.

    I also think Red Hat was also one of the biggest contributors to Linux's success. So many of the most important technologies that we use today came out of RH. I don't have a lot of love for them today, but their contributions in the '90s and '00s was immense.

    I actually think that a large part of the reason why PCs are much better open platforms than mobiles is because there is no Red Hat of the mobile ecosystem. Google started it out with AOSP, but then closed it up when they monopolized the market. Makes you wonder if RH would have done the same if they had the same kind of success.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago

    Launched into the stratosphere is the perfect phrase for it. It's had decade after decade after decade of crazy effort put into it. I'm sure that when looked back on from a future era it will be remembered as the first true example of human collaboration without boundaries. Kinda neat

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    It powers servers, smartphones, a growing number of personal computers, and at least three gaming consoles (Deck, Machine, Legion Go S), with more coming.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    And it captured our hearts along the way. I bet few of us knew it existed in '92.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Remember Windows Server? LMAO

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    It might not have the relevance that Linux has gained, but Minix is an operating system that you can run today. Ymmv.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    You know this is actually kind of funny, cause I think it might be very possible that the roles between Tanenbaum and Intel could hypothetically be reversed.

    There was a controversy a couple of years ago, with Wizards of the Coast and D&D, where they were planning on making a bunch of really bad and sweeping changes to the Open Gaming License. One of the controversies had to do with the license not having language for irrevocability, which Wizards believed allowed them to go ahead and deny people the right to make use of the old OGL moving forward, forcing everyone who publishes their OGL content to adhere to their new, more restrictive, license terms.

    They never moved forward with the bullshit because the backlash was that bad, but supposedly licenses are not irrevocable by default, and so any license that lacks explicit language granting irrevocable rights can be susceptible to the same rug pull that WotC almost pulled.

    And the last time I checked, guess which super permissive license does not grant irrevocability?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago*

    How? Torvolds released the Linux kernel in 91, lol.

    Oh, maybe because UNIXWare 1.0 (System V 4.2) came out in 1992, the first major release in years. :P 🖕

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    Not only Servers.. Most of the VR Headsets, many TV's, most mobile phones, a lot of automation systems, etc.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Tanenbaum is still around

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    "...but ‘vector’ is a useless survival, or offshoot from quaternions, and has never been of the slightest use to any creature." - Lord Kelvin

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›