Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Unix made it to the top

minnie.tuhs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#21

Post by JonathonW »

lisivka wrote: post #20
hasenj wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't iPhones and iPads also have a UNIX kernel?

It's complicated. Original UNIX by AT&T was newer open-sourced. BSD (Berkley Software Distribution) was opensource distribution of user programs for UNIX (like TCP/IP stack, vi editor, etc.), used by original UNIX, with proportions 20% of AT&T code and 80% of BSD code. So technically, BSD is(0.8) not(0.2) UNIX. FreeBSD is branched from BSD code, so it is(0.8) not(0.2) UNIX too. Apple MacOS X is based on FreeBSD code…

If you want to get technical about it, the Mac kernel itself isn't a traditional UNIX or BSD kernel; XNU (which, conveniently enough, stands for "X is not UNIX") is a hybrid composed of the Mach microkernel, some FreeBSD components, and Apple's own driver model.

The system as a whole is able to brand itself as UNIX compliant, though, because it complies with the Single UNIX Specification. That spec is concerned about userspace behavior, not kernel or implementation, and you don't have to include any actual UNIX source code to be able to brand your OS as a "UNIX" according to the spec and trademark guidelines.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#22

Post by lisivka »

JonathonW wrote: post #21
lisivka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated. Original UNIX by AT&T was newer open-sourced. BSD (Berkley Software Distribution) was opensource distribution of user programs for UNIX (like TCP/IP stack, vi editor, etc.), used by original UNIX, with proportions 20% of AT&T code and 80% of BSD code. So technically, BSD is(0.8) not(0.2) UNIX. FreeBSD is branched from BSD code, so it is(0.8) not(0.2) UNIX too. Apple MacOS X is based on FreeBSD code…

If you want to get technical about it, the Mac kernel itself isn't a traditional UNIX or BSD kernel; XNU (which, conveniently enough, stands for "X is not UNIX") is a hybrid composed of the Mach microkernel, some FreeBSD components, and Apple's own driver model. The system as a whole is able to brand itself as UNIX compliant, though, because it complies with the Single UNIX Specification. That spec is concerned about…

Yep, XNU is Mach microkernel + FreeBSD kernel. Some features of XNU are even ported back to FreeBSD kernel. IMHO, that is enough to draw direct connection from XNU to original UNIX (without ™), unlike Linux kernel.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#24

Post by sudhirj »

old-gregg wrote: post #13

> It didn't seem like a very good idea for us to be keeping records from > the inner sanctum of the corporation on a computer where most everybody > had super-user privileges. A call to the PR guy convinced him of the > wisdom of keeping such things on their own premises. And so the CEO's > office bought a Unix system. ... and this is exactly how it works today with SaaS subscriptions, except root-privileged people d…

Isn't that why most smart companies have a self hosted enterprise version as well?

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#25

Post by coldtea »

sudhirj wrote: post #24
old-gregg wrote: post #13

> It didn't seem like a very good idea for us to be keeping records from > the inner sanctum of the corporation on a computer where most everybody > had super-user privileges. A call to the PR guy convinced him of the > wisdom of keeping such things on their own premises. And so the CEO's > office bought a Unix system. ... and this is exactly how it works today with SaaS subscriptions, except root-privileged people d…

Isn't that why most smart companies have a self hosted enterprise version as well?

You'd be surprised.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#26

Post by coldtea »

cperciva wrote: post #11
hyperhopper wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that was the intended wordplay. Although it is a shame that for end users Unix is still nowhere near the top of any popularity metric.

How do you define "popularity"? UNIX is found in many devices end users don't think of as being "computers" at all. The best software is the software users don't even realize is there, because it just works .

Well, the meaningful way for UNIX (and Linux) to succeed as a popular product, according to the aspirations of its proponents, was on the desktop. It wasn't just about the server side back then (late 90s, early 00s) it was all about taking over Windows.

If somebody uses some hardware product (e.g. set top box) and doesn't know its Linux, then it's no big win for the Linux community.

And it's not just necessarily that users don't realize it's there because "it just works", either.

The set top box, for example, can be buggy or crappy but just not provide neither a way to dive in and fix it, nor branding related to Linux.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#27

Post by coldtea »

hasenj wrote: post #18
nine_k wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unix kernel is hugely popular: think of the millions of Android devices. Unix userland, not so much, outside the software engineering community.

Don't iPhones and iPads also have a UNIX kernel?

They do, and a certified one at that.

Android phone's doesn't, as Linux is not technically a UNIX (doesn't derive from the original UNIX codebase in any way.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#28

Post by cperciva »

coldtea wrote: post #26
cperciva wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "popularity"? UNIX is found in many devices end users don't think of as being "computers" at all. The best software is the software users don't even realize is there, because it just works .

Well, the meaningful way for UNIX (and Linux) to succeed as a popular product, according to the aspirations of its proponents, was on the desktop. It wasn't just about the server side back then (late 90s, early 00s) it was all about taking over Windows. If somebody uses some hardware product (e.g. set top box) and doesn't know its Linux, then it's no big win for the Linux community. And it's not just necessarily that…

If somebody uses some hardware product (e.g. set top box) and doesn't know its Linux, then it's no big win for the Linux community.

I have to disagree there. It may not be a marketing win, but that doesn't mean that there are no other benefits. The fact that the PlayStation 4 runs FreeBSD has resulted in a large number of improvements becoming available to us; whether Johnny knows that his games are running on a daemonic operating system is of very little relevance.

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#29

Post by flomo »

Wow. I have to say that it is funny how you hear the legendary tales of computing history over and over again and then some little crucial minor details like "we sold the CEO's office on it" eventually slip out.

Ok, that was important at AT&T, but not really why Unix currently rules the universe. Due to anti-trust settlements and cheap licensing, and copyright foibles, Unix was the cheap midrange choice for students and non-enterprise users. After a lot of pain, Unix eventually evolved into an "open standard". And that eventually evolved into an "open source" standard with Linux (and BSD, MacOS, etc.) To quote DEC's Ken Olsen[1]:

> [UNIX is] great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and it’s great for interchanging programs between different machines. ... It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. They’ll want a real system and will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.

And that is why your cell phone runs Unix and not VMS.

[1] http://sinix.org/blog/?p=16

Re: How Unix made it to the top

#30

Post by pmontra »

coldtea wrote: post #26
cperciva wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "popularity"? UNIX is found in many devices end users don't think of as being "computers" at all. The best software is the software users don't even realize is there, because it just works .

Well, the meaningful way for UNIX (and Linux) to succeed as a popular product, according to the aspirations of its proponents, was on the desktop. It wasn't just about the server side back then (late 90s, early 00s) it was all about taking over Windows. If somebody uses some hardware product (e.g. set top box) and doesn't know its Linux, then it's no big win for the Linux community. And it's not just necessarily that…

The only successful desktop UNIX derivative is MacOS. That ship has sailed.

However the most relevant computing devices for consumers are phones and tablets nowadays, not desktops. UNIX derivatives run almost all of them. Big success, I'd say.

UNIX derivatives are running most servers too and are making inroads into the Windows desktop. The outlook is good unless a new popular market suddenly open with no meaningful *nix presence in it.

Post reply on HN