this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
587 points (97.4% liked)
Linux
48652 readers
1008 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things. What is based on BSD is the MAC OSX that came out in 2001 AFAIK.
And BSD was interrupted for 2 years because of copyright disputes with AT&T. If that hadn't happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.
I don't consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn't part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.
Problem here is when people mix up the use of the word Linux as an OS with Linux the kernel. I am 100% sure OP meant Linux as a Desktop OS like GNU/Linux or something like Free desktop according to freedesktop.org. Using his experience with EndeavorOS as an example.
But you are right, it can be said Unix/BSD has an even longer running time, but it has been somewhat problematic and interrupted because of AT&T and SCO and Novell.
Check : What happened to the open source Apple Darwin OS then ?
tl;dr : Darwin OS is kind of obsoleted.
Then Windows 3.0 and Windows 11 are two different things, so by that metric you can't include Windows either.
I'd agree with that.
I think the windows NT lineage should be considered separately from the MS-DOS based ones (pre win 2000).
So I'd say MS-Dos family died with windows 2000. and the current windows lineage traces back to the early windows NT business oriented stuff - not back through windows 95.
Did you mean Windows Me?
2000 was NT-based.
yeah, that's what i meant; 2000 killed off the old one.
I forgot about Me though - never used it.
Good catch, I guess that's mostly true, but Windows NT was an evolution of Windows that mainly got rid of the DOS legacy. Which after Windows NT ran on a compatibility layer, where Windows 3 ran on DOS directly.
It's a bit of a grey area. But I'd say windows NT was a continuation of Windows that shared almost the entire API from Windows 3.0.
The old "System n" OS was also called MAC OS. And the switch to OSX was a completely new OS where the old MAC OS software ran on a compatibility layer.
I guess it can be seen either way.
Let's get even more technical with MacOS X then. Which, btw, doesn't exist anymore as macOS 11 was released in 2020 (tho it still maintains the BSD-legacy in the same way Windows 10 does the NT legacy). It is based on the NeXTSTEP operating system from NeXT Computers, who Apple bought in the 90s to famously also bring Steve Jobs back into the fold. The initial release of NeXTSTEP occurred in 1989, pre-dating Windows and Linux...
Or if the GNU project had used the BSD kernel instead of deciding to make their own from scratch.
Yes BSD just hasn't had much luck, I have no idea why the GNU project didn't use the BSD kernel? They say the Linux kernel was the final piece to make it a complete OS. But AFAIK BSD existed with a kernel way before that.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200330150337/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050727225542530
Stallman wanted to use TRIX initially but it was considered too limited for the goals of GNU.
BSD was considered too but some of the Berkeley crowd were uncooperative because they secretly planned to make a commercial version (BSDi).
In the the end he compromised on Mach.
Thomas Bushnell:
From "The Daemon, the GNU and the Penguin" by Dr. Peter H. Salus.
Interesting, I just don't get that last line, Linux came out in 1991, so how is 1991 way before Linux?
I'm not sure either, that if the GNU project had managed to make a decent kernel, that it would have made the world a different place today. At least not for the better.
The Linux kernel is the most successful piece of open software ever made, and it's GPL like GNU. I am far from sure another kernel would have been equally successful either technologically or in benefiting all sorts of computers.
Linux started in 1991 but initially it was just one student's project. It was only considered mature in 1994, by which time there were over 100 people working on it, lots of software was ported to it, the first distributions came out, and it officially hit version 1.0.
A working, established kernel in 1991 would have given the GNU project a 3 year head start. I'm also unsure if the combination of GPL userland and BSD kernel would have been ideal but 3 years can mean a lot in tech.
I haven't hurd much about that