Re: Windows vs. Linux
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:21:24 -0500 Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 12:01:50PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > AFAICT, Linux grew out of need for an _affordable_ and free POSIX kernel
> > > so that you don't have to spend billions just to run UNIX like
> > > OS.
> >
> > It grew out of one man's University homework, and dissatisfaction
> > with Minix (a tiny, "teaching" clone of Unix written by Linus'
> > Univerity Professor Andrew Tannenbaum.
>
> No, Tanenbaum was never Linus' professor. Tanenbaum teaches in the
> Netherlands, Linus was a student in Finland. During the famous
> Linus/Tanenbaum debates of 10 years or so ago, Tanenbaum said that if
> Linux had been written for one of his OS classes, it would have received
> a failing grade (due to its monolithic kernel architecture).
Thanks for the correction.
> You can find the Tanenbaum/Torvalds debates at
> http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html
>
> One interesting thing about them is that fairly early on, Tanenbaum
> criticises Linux for being closely tied to the Intel architecture. I
> find that a bit amusing, since I'm running Linux on SPARCs, PowerPCs,
> MIPSes, and ARMs. 8^)
Back in the beginning, it _was_ closely tied to the i386. It was the
Alpha port which convinced Linus to change that.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org:81 |
| |
! Great Inventors of our time: |
! Al Gore -> Internet |
! Sun Microsystems -> Clusters |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: