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

The early days of Linux

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 302 posts

Re: The early days of Linux

#291

Post by [deleted] »

KerrAvon wrote: post #227
icedchai wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Apple needed them both. The Apple II was there early, but by the mid-80's it was very overpriced for its capabilities, compared to the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bits. It needed Jobs' marketing abilities. Late 80's and 90's Apple survived purely because of marketing. Both Commodore and Atari had them beat technically, with the Amiga and ST. Remember, both of those could emulate the Mac and were half the price.

I remember them, and I have to tell you the Commodore and Atari 68k machines were not obvious winners. Ugly software, ugly hardware. I know this isn’t what fans of those machines want to hear, but Apple’s design aesthetic blew them and the PC away; Apple was simply in another league. Late 80’s Macs had the best user experience available. Again, this isn’t a popular take, but it is absolutely true. “Apple’s marketing…

[deleted]

Re: The early days of Linux

#294

Post by nortonham »

johnny22 wrote: post #223
nortonham wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BSD's aren't really opaque. I understand what larger point you're trying to make about the difference between linux and bsd development. But the biggest BSD projects all have mailing lists where you can see the decisions being made, and the source of the core of each one is available to everyone.

was that the case during the referenced time period? I think it's more about back then rather than now.

to be honest I can't be 100% sure about that. But each BSD OS is run differently. AFAIK the source of the base of each one has always been open.

Re: The early days of Linux

#295

Post by aa-jv »

NotCamelCase wrote: post #201

To me, one of the most remarkable aspects of this story and reading others' comments is how relatively quickly people seem to have picked up Linux despite the lack of modern high-speed internet and one-click away forums and networks we all enjoy today. I guess that's an inevitable outcome if the market is ripe for some change no matter the opposing forces, like missing features, strong alternatives or no commercial s…

One of my earliest great Linux experiences was when I set up my 486 to download all of the floppy images (or maybe it was the Yggdrasil .iso), then went to Op Amp Bookstore in Los Angeles for lunch, finding myself an Yggdrasil distro, returning home, cancelling the download and getting on with it ..

That was really a watershed for me: the whole thing on a single CD .. wow! And bootable, also!

Re: The early days of Linux

#296

Post by icedchai »

KerrAvon wrote: post #227
icedchai wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Apple needed them both. The Apple II was there early, but by the mid-80's it was very overpriced for its capabilities, compared to the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bits. It needed Jobs' marketing abilities. Late 80's and 90's Apple survived purely because of marketing. Both Commodore and Atari had them beat technically, with the Amiga and ST. Remember, both of those could emulate the Mac and were half the price.

I remember them, and I have to tell you the Commodore and Atari 68k machines were not obvious winners. Ugly software, ugly hardware. I know this isn’t what fans of those machines want to hear, but Apple’s design aesthetic blew them and the PC away; Apple was simply in another league. Late 80’s Macs had the best user experience available. Again, this isn’t a popular take, but it is absolutely true. “Apple’s marketing…

You are, of course, right. Apple's UI was better. I was primarily an Amiga user, but also had a friend with an Atari ST around that time, and both their desktops were kinda ugly. Amiga got more professional looking with 2.0, but still no match for the Mac in terms of usability.

Re: The early days of Linux

#297

Post by [deleted] »

toyg wrote: post #85
cesarb wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mind you while Linux was taking off the BSDs were apparently busy in lawsuits. So, while the zeroing of distribution costs should've benefited them, it seems Linux was at the right place at the right time, minus the baggage. There were other reasons. Reusing an older comment of mine ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32372063 ): My favorite theory for why Linux got a head start is in this (long) comment I found…

That was a failure of governance, which was a result of their failure to have an open development model. Linus was very liberal in accepting help from hobbyists and uncredentialed people (people who were hardware-poor, and hence needed support for stuff like dual-booting...), the BSD world has always been more opaque and closed. In a way it was a victory of horizontal, open, "upstart" governance, versus aristocratic…

[deleted]

Re: The early days of Linux

#298

Post by eythian »

20after4 wrote: post #180
chucknthem wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd part of the CVS section was funny too "[...] This experience is why Linus dislikes CVS and for years refused to use any version control beyond uploading tar balls to FTP sites." It's deadpan humor in written form.

I’ve had the great privilege of working with Lars. This deadpan humor is a constant feature of his discourse and even better in conversation than in this article.

Yes, I also worked with him in NZ for a year or so, some time ago. He is a nice and fun person to chat with.
Post reply on HN