Had 70 percentage of for Halloween deal, first time I had it. And I waited actually for black friday. Oh hopefully I don't need to use toilet paper both sides 🤣☺️🤣
Had my laptop stolen many years ago. With no computer and being kinda poor, I read that you could install Linux onto a Play Station 3, so that is what I did. It was painful but satisfying to learn code to get the install working then playing with the Ubuntu GUI. Yes, it had many limitations but I could use Open Office to do my school work and vlc to playback school videos. I always hoped Linux would have been widely adopted but that never happened (MS still exists). However, I've worked and many data centers over the years and every single one of them uses Linux for backbone operations and VM hosting.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 I'm not talking about how they might have succeeded, just imagining if they did. So much innovation has come out of OSS and proprietary players trying to keep up with OSS. So much infrastructure is based on OSS. The world would be a rather different place.
@@travcollier it is a very interesting thought experiment. Amazon, eBay, Netflix, and Google (incl TH-cam) rely heavily on Linux and FOSS. The current web landscape would be a very different pllace! Without competition, we might still be on IE6 ;)
Sharing of source code was actually a common practice even before DOS (harder due to the lack of communication routes) OSS is nothing new it's just been ratified/legalized/sterilized.
I'm very familiar with the degree of fear of open source before Microsoft discovered web services as a business model. Today it is the telecom industry that sees the Internet as an existential threat because it is open-source telecom. When a telephone call is just an app there is no need to pay for services from a provider. The only purpose of 5G is to push back on this but none of the stories make sense. Yet, so far, the press has accepted the just-so stories. 5G is marketecture, not architecture.
I remember many years ago (early days of car phones ) when I was a telecom engineer, having a conversation with an exec from BT and he told me that BT could effectively give free phone access for the costs involved.
@@SomePotato The Internet is not tubes but 5G bring back selling priority tubes. AKA, anti-neutrality. Also hosting apps on their servers is meant to preempt AWS and Azure and push back on the use of WiFi by giving all the control to the telco.
@@BobFrTube No idea what you are talking about, but traffic shaping isn't exactly a 5G thing. And the AWS/Azure thing, again no idea what that has to do with telcos.
@@SomePotato When the packet shaping is being done by the same ppl who supply the 5G, it is their thing. Packet shaping is essential to keeping the data flowing, but when they become the decider of who and what data gets prioritized (AKA who pays extra) That then becomes an issue of deepest pockets which is obviously anti-consumer. Net neutrality should be a foundation of the inet without interference. The thing about 5G is that it has more control of all data flow than any other previous setup. It's not that they couldn't have done this with previous generations, but they can get you and I to pay for it willingly, with the hope that we will get improved service.
You should have mentioned that microsoft's own web site started running the Apache web server on Linux in the 2010s. Every time I think about that, it makes me smile.
It was said at the end but not explained. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the judge found that there were legal issues with SCO's case and those issues could not be remedied. Therefore, the case was dismissed and cannot be brought up again, ever, except in the case of an appeal. If SCO loses the appeal, they'll lose the ability to litigate IBM over this issue entirely.
I mean, these days you can get Linux inside Windows (WSL2) and MS is consistently one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel since supporting it is so important to their Azure business. All the fighting against the adoption of OSS was really a waste of time and resources
Games are pretty much the only reason I use Windows. So many game devs only release on Windows -- despite Unity, UE4, and CryEngine all supporting building for Linux.
@@coatlessali As a Manjaro user I just look at it this way, if there is a game on STEAM for Linux that won't work for me that I really want to play, and there is a Nintendo Switch version then cool I'll pick it up for my Switch Lite, otherwise it's not worth my time playing, and I got a STEAM refund either way.
Just like @Coatless Eskimo said, if you want to not use Windows, you can. I managed to run a lot of AAA on Proton and for the remaining, you may get a console... Windows gamers are no longer held hostage as it was 5 years ago... Major studios don't do the move because they invested a lot in DirectX game engines and also because distributing Linux binaries is complicated, there are a lot of distros to support.... But as the industry is shifting progressively to commercial engines (UE, Unity etc) and automation is becoming very mature (Salt, Ansible), enabling diversity in build pipelines... Microsoft monopoly will fade off toward platform diversity.
@@emmanueloverrated I'm still amazed more games don't just distro as appimages or something similar. Better yet, want DRM, encrypt the appimage. It eliminates most of the distribution issues on Linux and solves copy protection without being intrusive to the user.
All the distros that are mostly incompatible with eachother? Ha, yeah, great job retards. Oh, you can't use this program with that shell. Oh, you can't configure this program through the GUI, you have to use a bunch of cryptic command line arguments and the worlds worst text editor to set that up. There is a reason why Linux still has even less users than mac (Android is NOT linux).
Yeah, Linux is great cause it’s free. My problem with it is that it’s not as refined. I There’s just small things that windows does so much better. There’s other things too, but Linux is still a great thing to learn
@@claytonstuart Switched from Windows to Linux completely, there aren't many things I miss. Linux feels more refined to me as I haven't experienced any random crashes unlike on Windows
@@Youcantpostcommentsonthisrun I can disagree. I prefer non-bloated systems and more configurable systems then a locked down system. In my opinion, people should have control over the system they have installed, not the company.
@@Youcantpostcommentsonthisrun Windows sucks big time, glad to be rid of it on my Dell laptop, I rather have control of my machine instead of Micro$oft through their questionnable update strategies, now to de-Google my phone...
I switched to Debian linux back in spring 1994 and have never regretted it.I believe that two of the computer scientists at my college with whom I was vaguely familiar with went on the head up the Debian project. I always draw people's attention to the Halloween documents (FUD and EEE - Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) if I wish to demonstrate what sort of company Micro$oft has become.
I fondly remember the first time I was able to connect my computer running Slackware 96 at the time to the internet with pppconfig. Fast forward a number of years later and I became the creator and maintainer of a number of Arch Linux packages in the AUR repo.
Linux is amazing. The more you use it, the better it gets. Now after being 4 years 100% migrated to Linux, I still find myself enjoying it more and more by the time passes. You can achieve things with Linux that you couldn't even think with Windows. But this is really hard to communicate or sell to someone new to Linux. Most start using Linux because of it's stability, security, privacy, better performance or just because they feel proprietary model is not moral or sustainable. But once you start to learn everything you can achieve with it, that's what separates it from Mac or Windows.
I started using it because one day my laptop suddenly had no OS (I have no idea, but it was vista so good riddance) and I'm pretty opposed to spending money, so linux it was.
@@ProSimex84 Linux has extended the life of my parents' laptops to 13 years and counting. The amount of problems has dropped from almost monthly calls to now having 1 call in 3 years. LTS kernel has been working for the whole time, and all updates have worked perfectly. It's pretty amazing.
It's good for some applications, but is utterly horrible in others. Horses for courses really. I've used many different operating system families and they've all got different things about them that I liked, and other things that I don't, but that's just the way things are. Linux is great for administrators and servers, anything set and forget, but I don't much like it from a user's point of view. I'm not referring to GUIs here (if you just want to surf the web, it's fine), but the design of things like the file structure, command syntax, stuff like that. There's many areas where it has dogmatically stuck to poor design from the dawn of unix. Unfortunately while many later operating systems fixed these issues with unix, inertia meant they fell by the wayside and nothing was learnt from them in Linux. Sometimes I just wish I was using VMS, or Amiga OS, because I know the task I need to do is trivial on those systems but involves writing shell scripts or editing config files in Linux. I'm actually using a Linux system to write this now, but it's not my usual choice.
Linux is pretty much garbage for the average user. Unfriendly install and setup for even experienced users along with a lack of real software that is compatible with other computer users (Adobe, etc.) along with incompatibility between linux versions and you have exactly what we have today. I niche OS used by a few geeks who think they are smarter by using a more difficult to use and configure and mostly incompatible OS.
@@thegearknob7161 I get what you are saying, but I don't agree. Many things people complain about Linux is just about what they have accustomed to within other operating systems. Sure certain things have Unix package, but then again those are and have been essential for getting Linux to be what it is. I actually get exactly what you are saying, and felt pretty much the same about decade ago. But now after having long enough experience with Linux, I'm feeling majority of those feelings were because I was so much more familiar with other systems. And also because I had problems with certain design choices that I didn't fully understand at the time. It took me a long time to feel more familiar with Linux than with Windows, but I was determined to migrate for many reasons. But once I felt more comfortable with Linux, Windows started quickly feeling absolutely horrible. I used Amiga from the late 80s till mid 97 when I sold my 68060 based machine away. I absolutely loved those machines. But comparing those to Linux is impossible. AmigaOs 3.1 was just amazing.
I legit remember buying a version of Debian in the box (with a bumper sticker included!) at my local Best Buy sometime around 1999, as well as seeing products like SuSE Linux available for purchase in the box. Crazy times!
Remembering a pain in the ass that was installing a Slackware 2.0 back in the day and installing any commercial Linux distro today, it's with an enormous pleasure that I'm announcing my 24nd year as Linux user. Since October 1996!
@thatonespathi Retro Linux stuff isn't seem to be interesting, it's basically just the same text screens and sometimes an barebones X setup. Also, a lot of those distributions are difficult to install even on period-appropriate hardware.
@@negirno Totally agree. Reviewing retro GNU/Linux operating systems can only be interesting if you review it differently than retro Windows operating systems in my opinion.
I fundamentally disagree with it being boring. You have the DE wars (which GNOME lost, since it was Gnome vs KDE at the time), you had things like Mandrake that took over the whole world and then died, and you had the genuine struggle with getting Windows-based ANYTHING to work, which basically made it a server OS at the time. Linux has an interesting history.
(5:02) This seems reminiscent of the Desktop Wars, in which IBM compatible computers won against other systems due to IBM creating an easily replicable system. IBM could be seen as having lost the battle themselves against the compatibles, but won the war with IBM compatibles becoming the de facto standard.
I remember the first time I heard of Linux. I was in a computer store and asking about antivirus software to a technician, when he quietly told me about it as if it was a secret or illegal bit of paraphernalia. I booted the disk and immediately fell in love with it.
I remember seeing the Computer Chronicle episode on my local PBS station in 98 where they interviewed Linus Torvalds, and that's when I started to get interested in Linux, but I had known about it before that, and even had a copy of RedHat 386 on CD, but could not get it to install on my hardware, then one of the techs at CompUSA said try CorelLinux, as I was already a big fan of Corel WordPerfect on Windows along with their other office software, sop and I did buy a copy(over $100 USD at the time), I liked it, but due to lack of software, and games It was a secondary hobby OS for me till a few years ago after trying it on/off throughout the 00's, and early 10's. Now I'm a full time Manjaro w/Mate DE user, and can't be happier.
I used DR dos back in the day and their disk compression was SUPERIOR to all others back then and worked flawlessly for me and I ran a bbs off of it using MAXIMUS lol I MISS THOSE DAYS - that’s when computers were fun. I ran Linux way back in the day before the GUI was available. Loved it
I have Linux on my second main PC. I've learned a bunch and am comfortable on it enough to put only a Distro of Linux on my next main main PC. And with Steam making it even easyer to play "Windows only" games it will I hope have more of a user base
> (Linux) remains an even more painfull thorn in their sight today Since Nadella, Microsoft came full circle, and is now: * embracing linux and open source * at times be the biggest contributor to Linux (for a given period) * added an option to windows to install a linux environment in windows (called WSL), * their cloud service Azure runs on linux * instead of fighting started supporting making their dotnet environment compatible with other platforms * does many of its new developer-focussed developments as open source (like visual studio code) * started rewriting their dotnet platform as open source (dotnet core) * adds direct support to their dev. tools to deploy to Linux * lifts some of their patents (like on exFAT) so that things can be added to linux etc. So your ending phrase couldn't be more wrong. Other than that, nice video
@@noahwilliams8996 point to any one of the ones I mentioned and explain how embrace, extend, extinguish applies. Note that I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing this for the good will of the world. They've simply realised that they can't fight it, and that they're doing more business if they embrace it.
@@lePoMo "Embracing Linux and open source" Yeah, that's what they're trying to make it SEEM like they're doing. Remember: corporations only care about maximizing profits.
@@noahwilliams8996 exactly. and they realized that they maximize profit by benefiting of linux and open source in general. also, you can embrace open source, you can extend open source, but you cannot extinguish it.
@@lePoMo Yes you can. It's called vendor lock-in. They'll come up with their own proprietary version with features that Linux doesn't have. That's their entire business strategy.
The big motto at the time of these documents in the community was "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." This was actually on the walls of the RedHat corporate offices back in the early 2000's IIRC.
The state of Linux nowadays is nothing short of amazing. In recent years I've been same to run games like Overwatch natively under Linux with full 3D rendering using development versions of WINE and dxvk.
Corel Linux was my very first experience with Linux. I downloaded version 1.0 on dial up only to have to download 1.2 a week later when they released it with usb support. I still rock it on some retro machines.
@Abstractism It is 463mb I dont remember exactly but I do recall using a download manager. The family had a separate fax line we used for dial up so we could still make phone calls. We also had unlimited dial up. It would have been a 20-38 hour download.
This feels especially relevant now with how far linux gaming has been coming along recently. Wouldn't be completely surprised if they tried something like this again, but I doubt it would happen.
Something to look into would be what happened about a decade earlier (90's) between SCO, Microsoft, and Novell - linux like slackware wasn't really a concern then most of the legal actions of those days were around Unix SysV. Another interesting thing to feature would be how hotmail and large portions of MSN was running on Solaris and Microsoft knew they had to have something that could scale - at that time Windows just didn't cut it.
Ok now name one big company that does not consider outside threats roflol. Now the steps they take are certainly up for review but there should be no surprise they would worry and develop strategies to maintain market dominance. That is what companies do until we break them up.
I can tell you right now why this is completely misinterpreted. They intended to get people to try to adopt linux, only to find that the OSS software at the time was just barely usable, and was missing lots of features, drivers, and support. They wanted a backlash that would eviscerate OSS for a generation. Unfortunately for them, people didn't really try to switch toe linux at the time. Now, that could be a problem.
Linux in early 2000s: are considered a threat by the company that makes the most used OS in the world. Linux in late 2010s: Breaking news: Local penguin refuses to die.
Things are actually very different as most of Microsoft's revenue now comes from Cloud services such as Azure (which they will happily support many OS applications and provide templates for Linux distros and applications). Many OS applications are fully supported and utilised by Microsoft, it's a very different world.
@@noahwilliams8996 locked in to what? Azure maybe, but the main competitors there are Google and Amazon, "open source software" is just another tool for these services it doesn't factor as a competitor.
Some important points: Microsoft last year bought GitHub! Also even 10 years ago a typical application would be composed of 20/80 open source to non-open source libraries. Today that is more like 80/20. Microsoft are now focusing on what they do well: (1) desktop operating system, (2) Active Directory and attachments in enterprise, (3) cloud computing (which embraces open source, as MS seem to now be doing). Maybe one day they will ditch Windows Server as they don't really need it anymore.
I still don't understand how I can live and hate a company so much at the same time, maybe it's just because they do so many different things that I can't hate all of it....
Yeah I refuse to use any of their software, protocols/formats, or online services. ...but I own an xBox. (Justified by it being a fully self contained single purpose appliance that doesn't interact with any other device I own.)
Ooh I remember these documents very well. It was exhilarating and so liberating to finally see Microsoft reacting toxic and overly aggressive. This won the hearts of so many people over to OSS. OSS was the underdog, no longer. Stength in numbers helps, when you already know you're doing well, and the only things that's missing is the recognition of the general public. I bet everybody today know what Linux is, roughly. Many might not use it, because they're gamers or need this or that windows software, or they don't enjoy the Linux desktop experience. But Linux has come a long way. It's everywhere now.
I think the biggest reason most people use windows is just because it’s preinstalled on most computers and don’t see the point on trying to install a completely different os and lack the knowledge on how to install a new os.
Long live software freedom. "Every generation must fight the same battles again and again. There's no final victory and there's no final defeat" - Tony Benn
Funny thing is, MS is doing more these days to drive people to Linux than the merits of Linux itself. Every update breaks more than it fixes, and Windows 10 has become a giant, hot buggy mess. Seems like stability is at the bottom of Microsoft's priority list, when it should be at the top.
Completely agree. Although the improvements in numerous Linux distros are notable, it's mostly poor decision making by Microsoft that's had me using Mint for the past 3 years and openSUSE for a year.
Windows, between 2000 and 7, was remarkably stable. Bad drivers and malware notwithstanding, of course. During this same period, my favorite Linux WM, KDE, crapped out what may have been some of the least usable releases in software meant to see the light of day. The relationship between the Linux kernel, X Windows, and the video drivers in either were also in flux. I kept using it as a desktop OS on a development box, but it wouldn’t be rare for stuff like copy and paste to stop working until I re-launched X, or for the lock screen to be unable to unlock. Linux also has a downright allergic reaction to out-of-memory conditions that Windows handles with esteemed grace, in comparison. So any argument that Linux = Stable and Windows = Buggy Mesa, at least during that decade, are perhaps a little shy of reality. (Although, in the server or appliance space, where the software stack is minimal and mostly of battle-hardened code, that is a completely different argument. But one should be comparing it to Windows Server at that point, which also runs like a marathon.) Anyway, Windows 8 is what convinced me to buy a MacBook Pro for my daily driver. And yeah, Windows 10 is a dumpster fire.
All operating systems break things when updating. That's why there are enterprise builds that have options to delay updates on a Long Term basis. Windows 10 has a slow update ring for users on WSUS and Windows 10 Enterprise and Education. Most Linux builds have LTS versions for this reason too.
Man I still remember the battle over Microsoft versus the creators of SAMBA (a compatible open source implementation of Windows workgroups, as well as being able to operate as things like Domain controllers later on).
The discussion of DOC files around the 5 minute mark is ironic, because many people were first introduced to Open Office as a solution to reading a DOC file that would not open or would even crash MS Word. Word originally loaded raw memory structures from the file that matched how the compiled code accessed data, which made it brittle: any error would be like an error in memory, sending points off to wrong locations or overwriting the boundaries of allocated areas. OO.O OTOH worked totally differently and implemented a parser to read and translate the format, including robust error checking that was fault-tolerant. Any error might result is typos or small losses, not a complete inability to load or worse yet a program crash.
oh damn, I used to know someone that worked at SCO. I never knew why the company shut down. When it did though, it shut down FAST. There were a ton of leftover desktops and laptops that had their HDD's wiped. I had no idea that Microsoft was involved with them to that degree
I somehow managed to work on projects at different companies using both SCO Xenix (a microsoft product originally, to create a PC unix) and then later SCO's Unix variant. Whenever things went wrong with it, as they inevitably did, we'd say "SCO!" in emulation of Homer Simpson's "D'oh!" catchphrase. Everything worked so much better once we were finally allowed to port it to Linux instead.
I started using Linux a bit before win95 came out, and I've watched its growth just continue ever since. Apart from for the odd game I've not done much with windows since the 90's. All my day to day work has been on the server side of ISP's which is a market MS has never really had much of a presence in. The commercial unix vendors have all gone by the way side (Sun, Sgi, Dec, Hp, Novell, Sco) and Linux is the only game in town. Even Microsoft's Azure is moving over to Linux now, which is a day I never thought I would see but Azure and Office 365 is how they make most their money these days, so Windows is just not that important a revenue stream as it once was.
It seems a shame that you missed the ending of the story. With Microsofts change on focus from a software company to a digital and cloud services company it did a complete U-Turn on Linux and open source. You can now get free Linux VMs on Azure. Microsoft owns and runs GitHub for free (major source code repository for a lot of open source projects). Microsoft has its own open source initiatives Microsoft is the 5th largest contributor to the Linux code base Microsoft now provides a wine like interface to run Linux software under Windows Also remember Xenix, Microsoft s abandoned attempt at a pre Linux UNIX clone for the x86 architecture and inspiration for Linus Toravolds azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/free/virtual-machines/search/ news.microsoft.com/announcement/microsoft-acquires-github/ opensource.microsoft.com/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_open_source docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install-win10 www.zdnet.com/article/top-five-linux-contributor-microsoft/ fossbytes.com/xenix-history-microsoft-unix-operating-system/
Microsoft is looking to undermine linux by making Windows a "better version of Linux" by adding stuff to WSL exclusively. Then they can snuff it out and run a proprietary software future.
Talking with our Microsoft account managers, it appears that Microsoft is no longer focussing on the operating system or proprietary software. Microsoft see their future being a cloud service platform. "Proprietary software" is less about which OS or application you use and more about using a Microsoft data lake, Azure functions and which AI engine. D3D in WLS is more about allowing you to develop your AI application with access to your GPU locally before deploying it to Azure to scale up to millions of GPU cores. I don't think Microsoft cares about winning the desktop or server war anymore, it's not where the future is headed.
i've been working as a server admin/webmaster ever since before i even finished college, for nearly about 10 years now and never ever have i used windows server for production... i mean, yeah sure, window's hyper-v is really good, but the cost is ridiculous and i often advise the companies i work for against using windows server
And today we have WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). A godsend for us developers stuck with Windows, but needing an actual workable developing environment for professionals after the bad turn Windows has been taking over the last decade.
Painful memories. I was a level three UNIX/Linux support engineer at IBM between 2000 and 2007 (via IBM's acquisition of Sequent Computer Systems). I was deposed by lawyers regarding the SCO vs IBM lawsuit since I had access to Linux source code on IBM's intranet and did such things as Linux kernel crash dump analysis. I hope to never repeat that experience. The lawsuit, from my perspective, was a crock of shit but IANAL and don't speak for IBM (since I left their employ in 2007).
Something interesting about Unix, but back in the 80s when Unix was only available in proprietary versions many companies like Sun HP, Microsoft, etc. all released their own versions of Linux that where incompatible to varying degrees with each other as mentioned in the video. What made them all flavors of Unix (or Unix distros if you will) was that they all shared underlying code from AT&T, who were the inventors of Unix. AT&T invented Unix in 1970 but was unable to commercialize it due to an antitrust consent decree from the 1950’s that prevented them from getting into any other business beyond telephone service (they where a government sanctioned telephone monopoly at the time). This meant that early versions of Unix were only able to be given out to educational institution to play around with sort of under the table. Later though they licensed the source code for a flat fee (a lower fee for education institutions/universities and a higher one for commercial one), a practice that was allowed under the decent decree. Thus companies like HP and Sun could license the source code then compile their own custom versions of Unix with their proprietary add-on features and software. There was no Unix standardization at the time. Early in the 1980 this would change when AT&T, then under a second anti-trust case with U.S. government agreed to split up AT&T, selling off it’s local telephone companies (Baby Bells) and some other parts of the company and allow competition for long distance service for the first time, in exchange for being able to enter the computer business. This started what became known as the Unix Wars. Back in the mid 70’s, UC Berkeley (A prominent University in Berkeley, CA, USA) started a computer department Know as Berkeley Systems that licensed the Unix code from AT&T and began work on an add-on package for Unix called The Berkeley Systems Distribution. This add-on package later became a Unix distro in it’s own right still under the name Berkeley Systems Distribution. BSD Unix was sold to other Universities who had to have a seperate license from AT&T for the Unix source code to use it legally. After AT&T settled it antitrust case and was allowed to finally market Unix as commercial package itself, AT&T Developed a commercial version known as System V that AT&T sold directly through a Unix subsidiary they created. They promoted this as official Unix version. Because of previouse licensing of the Unix source code to Berkeley System and others, other flavors of Unix continued to exists including BSD Unix and many commercial/enterprise version based on BSD. This led to the Unix wars were AT&T tried to push System V as the only real Unux while others promoted BSD and other BSD derived Unix’s at the better choice. Ultimately this hurt Unix and it was realized that they needed to set some standards for Unix to reduce the fractured nature of the Unix ecosystem. This lead to such projects at the POSIX standards that set standards for what qualifies as true Unix system. Thus If you wanted to use the trademark UNIX you needed to meet certain standards going forth. Linux also has a standardization certification program though few distros have applied for certification largely due incompatibles being less of issue in Linux largely due to the open-source nature of Linux making it harder to create proprietary incompatible features in Linux and easier for users and developers to support de facto standards in Linux. The only real issue is making Linux software available via the various different package managers which also involves dealing with dependencies. Unfortunately for AT&T they never quit figured out how to properly market System V UNIX on their own back in the 80’s so it would dominate the Unix install base, much like how IBM lost the IBM-PC market to clones. AT&T after a failed attempt to sell computer hardware including PC’s in the late 80’s and early 90’s, later get out of the computer business including selling off their Unix arm, Unix Systems Lab (USL) to Novel in the early 90’s (by this time both Free Unix-like OS including FreeBSD and Unix where around making proprietary Unixes like System V increasingly obsulete. Meanwhile, a while AT&T was still trying to sell cooperations on System V as the best Unix to adopt, number of BSD Unix users lamented that fact that to use BSD Unix also meant having to pay high licensing fees for the source code for Unix to AT&T and wanted Berkeley Systems to seperate the parts of the OS that they wrote from the code that came from AT&T. At first this resulted in a incomplete OS were you had to figure out an replacement for the missing Unix Kernel. Later, someone wrote a replacement kernel among other replacement parts for proprietary AT&T Unix code which is how we eventually got FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and other Unix-like OS based on the BSD code. Linux on the other hand was not based on Unix code but rather based on a proprietary Unix-like OS written from scratch in the late 80’s for University use that Linus Torvolds wanted to use for himself but couldn’t due to restrictive licensing issues back then so he decided to create a clone of the kernel used in that OS and then combine that with open-source clones of popular Unix CLI tools and apps from the Free Software Foundation known as the GNU tools/apps. That’s how Linux came to be. Currently, while the Linux community is going strong, the BSD-based Unix community (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc) has an uncertain future (outside fo the BSD/FreeBSD based macOS) with questions as to why we need to maintain the BSD based Unix like OS when the Linux OS is very mature and has distros that are arguably just as good.
When Microsoft first built Windows NT / OS /2 they needed to have Posix compatibility to meet GSA requirements to sell to the federal government. To get it done quickly the windows TCP/IP stack was built by Porting the BSD stack over to Windows NT and OS/2. On early versions of NT the network utilities for command line respond to the BSD required arguments and display the BSD license. The new stack used from windows 2000 and later no longer display the BSD license due to Microsoft completely re writing the stack windows ME also uses the windows 2000 stack.
@@JeffreyPiatt BSD Unix was I believe the first Unix to support TCP/IP which was a major impetus for splitting of the networking portion of BSD Unix from the kernel/base OS portion belong to AT&T. By creating a Kernel compatible that could run a Linux software but was free of AT&T IP they where able to create open source Unix flavors though AT&T/USL tried to sue over the first open source Unix clones for copyright infringement but lost due the developers effectively cleaning out the AT&T code from what would become FreeBSD and OpenBSD and their derivatives. It was Berkeley Systems giving away as free & open source software under the BSD license that allowed many future OS’s including NeXTSTEP, MacOS, Windows NT 3.1, etc. to a.l have a fairly well developed TCP/IP stack. Unfortunately, some companies decide to developed their own in-house version of TCP/IP which is always risky due to the possibility of introducing bugs/flaws and thus security holes on untested code. This is why the original Edge Browser in Win10 went nowhere while I think the knew edge based on Chromium (aka Chredge) will get better traction as it free Microsoft from having to developed their own rendering engine and fix flaws in it while leaving them to work on their own ideas for a better GUI interface and feature set vs Chrome and Firefox. We have to see if MS innovates enough to be a major player again in the browser space. So far I’m sticking with Firefox and Chrome when using a Win10 PC. Microsoft should have just stuck with BSD’s TCP/IP in Win 2000 as fail to see how doing their own version benefited them or Windows users. It’s not like the BSD TCP/IP stack never advanced to keep up with advances in the internet and networking.
It might be a stretch to say Linux was based on Minix. Torvalds wanted a UNIX and Minix was the closest offering at the time (and it evidently sucked). Maybe the file system came from it, but that is probably about it
@@kungfujesus06 My understanding was he wanted a Unix-like OS and Minix was/is a POSIX compliment Unix-like OS and as a result Linux in its various distros became a Unix-like OS for this reason though none of the early Linux Distros were officially POSIX compliment (are any as 2020? I don't know). So while Linux Distros were not clones of Minix exactly in the strict sense they were very close in operation in many aspects at least as far as they went to being Unix clones. Later Distros better duplicated features of Unix/Free bad/Minix/etc to be more Unix-like. What Torvolds first developed was just a Kernel and FSF who parted the completed portions of their stalked GNU Unix-like OS to worked with the Linux kernel. It was the GNU utilities and apps that made for a usable OS. A lot of what formed early Linux Distros came from the so far failed attempt at a open source free Unix clone known GNU from the FSF that wast to include the HURD kernel which has never reached a stable state despite continued work on it to this day (it's been three decades though they haven't given up yet I've HURD😆). Fortunately, the FSF realized there plan was not going as planned (GNU HURD's Multiserver microkernel design has proven harder to implement then thought) and thus agreed to make what portions they had completed of GNU work with the Linux kernel so they'd have a FOS OS sooner rather then maybe never. I don't know if HURD will ever come to be in a ready for deployment state and if so will it really so much better then the Linux Kernel in its design to worth using over Linux.
@@Charlesb88 Right but having a POSIX compliant interface is hardly "based on". Linus used the crappy Minix file system early on in Linux before ext became production ready. No code of any kind was taken from Minix.
I still use Windows because I used it for 6 years. I know how to use Ubuntu and a bit of Linux stuff like the sudo command. But I still use Windows 10 due to me not wanting to modify my system.
I still have to use Windows at work but at home I have two setups, one is MacOS and the other is Linux Mint. The two systems run 24/7 and in the last two years, the MacOS has crashed twice and the Linux has never crashed. At one stage, when I was using Windows, I had regular crashes. W10 caused up to 12 crashes in a single day. I could not continue with that level of failure. I am more productive now because I am not tinkering with the OS to keep it stable.
Windows 10 officially supports a Linux virtual environment. I use BASH commands in things like NPM to install and manage web development tasks too in my WIndows environment.
They are still at it in full force, they only went quiet for a short time after the anti-trust situation with the government. There is a reason MS has only the smallest presence in the server market,(like under 10%) most professional system admins can smell the long term danger of doing business with MS, home users are generally not computer literate enough to understand the issues. Most of that small MS server presence is concentrated in the smaller IT departments where the company doesn't have the resources to hire dedicated certified system administrators and MS can sell the business manager on bunch of marketing hokum which then pulls them slowly into the walled garden trap. (Which is how I estimate most mid size IT departments inherited an MS situation, started small and now the cost of escape is high.) Apple also has a walled garden but they don't hide it, in fact they seem to brag about it, Apple devices physically equipped with open standard protocols like bluetooth are programmed to flatly refuse connection with non-apple devices.
Worth mentioning is that SCO was founded in 1979, and has been called the "first Unix company". It was actually a highly-respected company. The ascendancy of Linux effectively obsoleted commercial versions of Unix, which of course meant SCO wasn't viable as a business. What was once a highly-regarded business died an ignoble death as a patent troll. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I imagine Linux is the world's most-used OS, probably by at least an order of magnitude more than Windows. It's powering phones, network routers, and undoubtedly a bunch of other stuff of which we are unaware. Microsoft still has a stranglehold on the desktop, as evidenced by how awful Windows is. No product could be that bad if there was real competition.
@@Bagginsess sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade, it's not windows being advanced, it's windows having a trillion dollars company behind it. I wish 🥺 Microsoft becomes good guy, and not like Chucky the good guy puppet, again.
Ironically Microsoft is more honest with what data the system services need to operate to be useful. Google and Amazon use a lot of legal speak to hide what there doing.
Andrew S. Tannenbaum, creator of MINIX, was interviewed in 2004 about whether Linus Torvalds wrote or could have written Linux himself, but with the pretense that it was about the history of UNIX. Very interesting: www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
You did not mention the groklaw website which gathered all information about the SCO vs the world from 2003 onward, and when I say "all" I mean "all". Long live PJ!
As our technology improves, I think open source is the future as single corporations only develop products for profit. Never underestimate the power of open source.
The Tides are changing there, especially this year with multiple vendors putting forward "Linux Certified" Laptops and Desktops where previously there was none.
System76 is selling their computers with Linux (PopOS) installed, and they are said to be pretty good (based on LTT's review of one of their products, can't really remember which one it was).
Chromebooks make up a fairly large percentage of the laptop market, and despite their beat efforts Microsoft is still behind Android and Apple in the tablet market.
There are plenty available, but you kinda have to be looking for them. I yet have to see a PC with Ubuntu, Mint, or Manjaro in Best Buy or in best selling categories in online shops.
As I recall, the SCO lawsuit eventually pared sown the claims of infringement to a few lines of kernel source for handling load balancing between multiple processor cores. SCO had previously bought the rights to Xenix - Microsoft's implementation of Unix - It was eventually determined that load balancing code was added by IBM from another source, which was developed at a publicly funded university and was in the public domain. Meanwhile, as SCO started advertising binary licenses for linucs at $699 per processor in server installtions ($1399 after SCO "won" the lawsui). M\eabwile Microsott started promoting their latest server version of windows as protection from SCo LAWSUITS.
I tried to put Linux on my laptop. Patented Intel Linux Blocker technology (RST) prevented me from using my NVME M.2 drive as the boot drive. Thanks Intel!
The only exception where FOSS-software can not be competitive is AAA-gaming (the production of games). Other than that it can be 100% competitive and indeed even get better on the long term because you can keep building and keep using a relatively old code-base. To produce such games you need a large budget on short term, that is not possible for FOSS. But in theory they could make the best game-engine or produce nice indy-games or platform-games eventually.
I seem to recall one rather hotly fueled discussion somewhere on the internet that some version of Windows actually incorporated parts of LINUX and or UNIX in it's internal components. Not sure where it is, maybe someone remembers what the specifics were. It seemed to have a lot of discussion going around it.
@@ratthew42 i will say gaming on linux is not that bad now days thanks to steam play/proton and wine but drm and anti chat is making it hard for linux gaming to be as good as windows oh and the halo master chief collection single-player works on linux
@@ratthew42 Been a Linux gamer for years now. Still have a Windows partition for some games (specifically those with shitty anti-cheats), but everything else runs nicely for me.
Linux has 9 billion versions and what works on one version may not work on another version leaving the possibility of having to use numerous versions of linux to use linux programs. Add in the extremely unfriendly setup and configuration and you have pretty much no one using it.
And it offers a common architecture and API across all those varieties. Example: being able to run exactly the same software on a Raspberry π as on your AMD Ryzen box. Or on an IBM POWER9-based supercomputer.
@@MAGAMAN Assuming you are being serious, you are mostly wrong. Linux has gone through many versions, but "Linux" only refers to the kernel, which is almost always backwards compatible for stuff, with drivers being more picky. If a program isn't compatible with a modern kernel, you are either using something like nvidia drivers, or have an extremely old program that probably has an updated version, or a newer replacement. Distributions are more like separately maintained OSes, but there is good compatibility between them. Sure, you might have a bit of trouble installing, for example, a .rpm file on a Debian based system, but you can still do it. There are some differences and package conflicts (eg. progam x needs version 1 or lower of program z, but program y needs version 1.1 of z or higher) that can happen, but I haven't experienced something like that in quite a while. You can also pick the amount of interaction with the command line with your distro choice. Some, you don't need to interact with the command line at all, and on the other side, some have installers that don't have a gui, and/or don't come with one by default. TLDR you probably don't know how this works or are joking.
VLC Media Player is a clear example that OSS can be better that Microsoft alternatives. Groove, a simple mp3 player, crashes very frequently, what should never happen considering I use modern hardware
I don’t know anyone who he used Linux. In fact the only time I’ve ever seen it in person is when I visited Crewe Alexandra FC for an ICT A-Level project in 2001!
I became very annoyed with Micro$oft after the browser wars in the late nineties. When they destroyed Netscape and tried very, very hard to break lots of web standards and APIs. When Netscape was killed off, they completely neglected any browser development, until Google started funding Firefox and Chrome.
I've always run windows because I game but I have toyed with Linux. I recommend Linux for old computers all the time, but if the person I'm talking to is a gamer, I'd tell em to get windows.
12:47: Or too put it another way: "we can't beat the competition on price quality or ease of use, so that leaves fraud...or as we prefer to call it: "marketing"". ~Pointy Haired Boss (Dilbert).
Linux is great cause it’s free. My problem with it is that it’s not as refined. I There’s just small things that windows does so much better. There’s other things too, but Linux is still a great thing to learn
@randy s _"whats not refined."_ A LOT is NOT refined on Linux, it's sharp around the edges. DO NOT DENY IT! _"try linux mint it super refined."_ Yeah bloated enough so you rarely have to find a dependency or a program. that's not what i call refined. I have used basically every Desktop environment and all of them leak something. However gnome and kde seem to be the most refined of the bunch, since KDE is hurting my OCD, i went with gnome i feel super slow in gnome so i use tweaks to make it feel like windows.
Windows 2000 was the nail in the coffin that pushed me to Linux and I've never looked back. Still keep an older 9 pin serial port equipped laptop with xp on it tho , lots of old Inverters ect. Still being used commercially in industry
Thanks to Azure, which is more than 50% Linux VMs, MS are making a hefty wad out of Linux these days and they have ported most of their most important apps to Linux as of 2020, most recently Direct 3D (for WSL), Teams and their Edge browser. Linux is most definitely not a thorn in their side nor something they are even remotely averse to post Ballmer. Next up: MS buys Canonical.
I like Linux a lot but I think Microsoft needs not to be afraid of it too much. I had a development job recently that involved Linux kernel and the shit I saw in there just would not fly in a software owned and maintained by a commercial entity. I worked with a kernel feature and it was pure crap. It had a version number - which the maintainer did not change for several versions. We found bugs in it, fixed them and reported them to the maintainer. He responded that we should read the manual. So our team replied, explaining what the bugs were and how they were causing crashes and we never heard from him again. I do like the Linux kernel for being OSS and that gives us a chance to fix the crap ourselves. But that you need to fix the crap at all, that's where it kinda loses me.
With Wayland getting widespread adoption in the Linux community, you may be right. A year ago, the only good Wayland experience you could have was with GNOME, as they were the only ones to fully support it. However, I'm using KDE with Wayland right now in Fedora 33, and it seems to have come a long way since last year. X.Org has been declared obsolete and the last release was in 2016. Not a day too soon.
@@adamn.4111 The way nvidia "supports" wayland via EGLStreams requires developers jumping through hoops just to allow people with nvidia cards to use wayland, as everyone else has already agreed on using GBM for wayland. As long as nvidia has a large market share and is actively trying to not support the thing that every other hardware and software manufacturer has agreed on, wayland will not be widespread.
@@Prism019 I don't have an Nvidia GPU anymore so can't really tell how bad the Nvidia + Wayland situation is. But I've read that people are having issues with that. Both AMD and Intel have made their graphics drivers open source. Nvidia apparently doesn't want to do that, and as you say they're actively stifling the Linux desktop. It's starting to look like they're doing it on purpose, but I don't know why. Even Linus said "Fuck you, Nvidia!". He was right.
In one word: Azure. A large part of Azure runs on Linux. As a Azure developer I prefer Linux based Azure webapps over Windows. Also Docker containers are very much smaller compared to Windows based containers. The Microsoft devs are frantically trying to make those smaller but they are still stuck at several GB, where a Linux system can be as small as MegaBytes. So as the server market is largely dominated by Linux so is the Azure platform. Microsoft can't possibly ignore that as they want Azure to be as profitable as possible. They don't focus too much anymore on software, the new focus is SAAS and PAAS. Azure, office365, etc. These documents are from the Gates/Steve Balmer era. Steve Balmer once called Linux a cancer. Now Microsoft can't ignore Linux any longer. I don't know what the real stance of Microsoft on Linux is but if I would make a guess its probably something along the lines of what makes the most profit. And for now Azure is a big part of their profit.
If Microsoft chose to they could enable wsl on every machine by default and developers would need only port to linux and their software would run everywhere. They don’t. They squirrel wsl away in a hidden setting that spits scary warning messages. It only exists so the technical minded people who are curious about/or have tried a little linux do not switch away from Windows
I have given up Linux... I tried countless distros on my Xeon 2288G Workstation and most would not boot at all and 1 versions did sort of run but vas impossible to use because of 30 seconds delay on mouse and keyboard input. Only Unix alike system that I got working was BSD and Mac OS running as hackintosh but both of them had same problem with only running 1280*720p resolution on my 4k TV and nothing else would work.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Happy Halloween folks. Make sure you wash your hands after knocking on grubby doors. That's a general rule for life, not just today.
I got some acceptable less reduction in pricing which I expected at black friday actually.
👻🎃Happy Halloween🎃👻
And always look both ways after wiping your ass!
Had 70 percentage of for Halloween deal, first time I had it. And I waited actually for black friday. Oh hopefully I don't need to use toilet paper both sides 🤣☺️🤣
If MS would just make Office for Linux/Unix...
Had my laptop stolen many years ago. With no computer and being kinda poor, I read that you could install Linux onto a Play Station 3, so that is what I did. It was painful but satisfying to learn code to get the install working then playing with the Ubuntu GUI. Yes, it had many limitations but I could use Open Office to do my school work and vlc to playback school videos. I always hoped Linux would have been widely adopted but that never happened (MS still exists). However, I've worked and many data centers over the years and every single one of them uses Linux for backbone operations and VM hosting.
You legend
Epic story lol.
No worries, Windows soon will be a Linux distribution with IP leveraged (like with exFAT) so that other distributions are less diserable.
@blacknester no. because its not a really fear competition.
@blacknester capitalism 1x1 at its best. Nice.
Imagine how bad Microsoft would be now if they actually did manage to crush OSS... That's a scary thought
How would they do it? Who would they acquire and shut down?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 I'm not talking about how they might have succeeded, just imagining if they did. So much innovation has come out of OSS and proprietary players trying to keep up with OSS. So much infrastructure is based on OSS. The world would be a rather different place.
@@travcollier it is a very interesting thought experiment. Amazon, eBay, Netflix, and Google (incl TH-cam) rely heavily on Linux and FOSS. The current web landscape would be a very different pllace! Without competition, we might still be on IE6 ;)
@@travcollier - But your premise makes no sense. There's no way to "crush OSS". Do you mean crushing linux? That's different.
Sharing of source code was actually a common practice even before DOS (harder due to the lack of communication routes) OSS is nothing new it's just been ratified/legalized/sterilized.
I'm very familiar with the degree of fear of open source before Microsoft discovered web services as a business model.
Today it is the telecom industry that sees the Internet as an existential threat because it is open-source telecom. When a telephone call is just an app there is no need to pay for services from a provider. The only purpose of 5G is to push back on this but none of the stories make sense. Yet, so far, the press has accepted the just-so stories. 5G is marketecture, not architecture.
I remember many years ago (early days of car phones ) when I was a telecom engineer, having a conversation with an exec from BT and he told me that BT could effectively give free phone access for the costs involved.
And how exactly is this evil 5G plan going to work? It's essentially just a bigger tube.
@@SomePotato The Internet is not tubes but 5G bring back selling priority tubes. AKA, anti-neutrality. Also hosting apps on their servers is meant to preempt AWS and Azure and push back on the use of WiFi by giving all the control to the telco.
@@BobFrTube No idea what you are talking about, but traffic shaping isn't exactly a 5G thing.
And the AWS/Azure thing, again no idea what that has to do with telcos.
@@SomePotato When the packet shaping is being done by the same ppl who supply the 5G, it is their thing. Packet shaping is essential to keeping the data flowing, but when they become the decider of who and what data gets prioritized (AKA who pays extra) That then becomes an issue of deepest pockets which is obviously anti-consumer. Net neutrality should be a foundation of the inet without interference.
The thing about 5G is that it has more control of all data flow than any other previous setup. It's not that they couldn't have done this with previous generations, but they can get you and I to pay for it willingly, with the hope that we will get improved service.
You should have mentioned that microsoft's own web site started running the Apache web server on Linux in the 2010s. Every time I think about that, it makes me smile.
their mail service is also handled by Akamai, which has used Linux exclusively since their inception
It was said at the end but not explained. "Dismissed with prejudice" means the judge found that there were legal issues with SCO's case and those issues could not be remedied. Therefore, the case was dismissed and cannot be brought up again, ever, except in the case of an appeal. If SCO loses the appeal, they'll lose the ability to litigate IBM over this issue entirely.
But not dismissed with "extreme" prejudice though. :p
I mean, these days you can get Linux inside Windows (WSL2) and MS is consistently one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel since supporting it is so important to their Azure business. All the fighting against the adoption of OSS was really a waste of time and resources
Games are pretty much the only reason I use Windows.
So many game devs only release on Windows -- despite Unity, UE4, and CryEngine all supporting building for Linux.
Even then, Proton is making strides. All that's left in our way is DX12 Ult (not so much anymore), anti-cheat, DRM, and WMP.
@@coatlessali As a Manjaro user I just look at it this way, if there is a game on STEAM for Linux that won't work for me that I really want to play, and there is a Nintendo Switch version then cool I'll pick it up for my Switch Lite, otherwise it's not worth my time playing, and I got a STEAM refund either way.
Just like @Coatless Eskimo said, if you want to not use Windows, you can. I managed to run a lot of AAA on Proton and for the remaining, you may get a console... Windows gamers are no longer held hostage as it was 5 years ago...
Major studios don't do the move because they invested a lot in DirectX game engines and also because distributing Linux binaries is complicated, there are a lot of distros to support.... But as the industry is shifting progressively to commercial engines (UE, Unity etc) and automation is becoming very mature (Salt, Ansible), enabling diversity in build pipelines... Microsoft monopoly will fade off toward platform diversity.
@@emmanueloverrated I'm still amazed more games don't just distro as appimages or something similar. Better yet, want DRM, encrypt the appimage.
It eliminates most of the distribution issues on Linux and solves copy protection without being intrusive to the user.
factorio works nativly on Linux.
Linux is amazing. Many kudos to all of the developers who have made all the distros into what they are today. And to you, for this video!
All the distros that are mostly incompatible with eachother? Ha, yeah, great job retards. Oh, you can't use this program with that shell. Oh, you can't configure this program through the GUI, you have to use a bunch of cryptic command line arguments and the worlds worst text editor to set that up. There is a reason why Linux still has even less users than mac (Android is NOT linux).
Yeah, Linux is great cause it’s free. My problem with it is that it’s not as refined. I
There’s just small things that windows does so much better. There’s other things too, but Linux is still a great thing to learn
@@MAGAMAN Linux can be complex, but figuring things out is part of the fun.
@@claytonstuart Switched from Windows to Linux completely, there aren't many things I miss. Linux feels more refined to me as I haven't experienced any random crashes unlike on Windows
@@MAGAMAN kids don't do drugs! , you'll end up like this lost soul....
17:00 "But hey, Microsoft and Windows are still here as well"
The perfect Halloween scary ending.
And they are in between embrace and extend right now...
@@Youcantpostcommentsonthisrun I can disagree.
I prefer non-bloated systems and more configurable systems then a locked down system.
In my opinion, people should have control over the system they have installed, not the company.
@@Youcantpostcommentsonthisrun Windows sucks big time, glad to be rid of it on my Dell laptop, I rather have control of my machine instead of Micro$oft through their questionnable update strategies, now to de-Google my phone...
@@wastelandwanderer3883 ok that's your opinion and I respect that.
So why are you going for the bad ending? The good ending is microsoft dies, oss wins.
I went to come in and defend Linux as a daily user, but it looks like the comments section has me covered quite nicely.
I love that you used "Unices" as the plural.
I switched to Debian linux back in spring 1994 and have never regretted it.I believe that two of the computer scientists at my college with whom I was vaguely familiar with went on the head up the Debian project. I always draw people's attention to the Halloween documents (FUD and EEE - Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) if I wish to demonstrate what sort of company Micro$oft has become.
MS has been a snake since its inception.
I fondly remember the first time I was able to connect my computer running Slackware 96 at the time to the internet with pppconfig. Fast forward a number of years later and I became the creator and maintainer of a number of Arch Linux packages in the AUR repo.
Linux is amazing. The more you use it, the better it gets. Now after being 4 years 100% migrated to Linux, I still find myself enjoying it more and more by the time passes. You can achieve things with Linux that you couldn't even think with Windows. But this is really hard to communicate or sell to someone new to Linux. Most start using Linux because of it's stability, security, privacy, better performance or just because they feel proprietary model is not moral or sustainable. But once you start to learn everything you can achieve with it, that's what separates it from Mac or Windows.
I started using it because one day my laptop suddenly had no OS (I have no idea, but it was vista so good riddance) and I'm pretty opposed to spending money, so linux it was.
@@ProSimex84 Linux has extended the life of my parents' laptops to 13 years and counting. The amount of problems has dropped from almost monthly calls to now having 1 call in 3 years.
LTS kernel has been working for the whole time, and all updates have worked perfectly. It's pretty amazing.
It's good for some applications, but is utterly horrible in others. Horses for courses really. I've used many different operating system families and they've all got different things about them that I liked, and other things that I don't, but that's just the way things are.
Linux is great for administrators and servers, anything set and forget, but I don't much like it from a user's point of view. I'm not referring to GUIs here (if you just want to surf the web, it's fine), but the design of things like the file structure, command syntax, stuff like that.
There's many areas where it has dogmatically stuck to poor design from the dawn of unix. Unfortunately while many later operating systems fixed these issues with unix, inertia meant they fell by the wayside and nothing was learnt from them in Linux. Sometimes I just wish I was using VMS, or Amiga OS, because I know the task I need to do is trivial on those systems but involves writing shell scripts or editing config files in Linux.
I'm actually using a Linux system to write this now, but it's not my usual choice.
Linux is pretty much garbage for the average user. Unfriendly install and setup for even experienced users along with a lack of real software that is compatible with other computer users (Adobe, etc.) along with incompatibility between linux versions and you have exactly what we have today. I niche OS used by a few geeks who think they are smarter by using a more difficult to use and configure and mostly incompatible OS.
@@thegearknob7161 I get what you are saying, but I don't agree. Many things people complain about Linux is just about what they have accustomed to within other operating systems.
Sure certain things have Unix package, but then again those are and have been essential for getting Linux to be what it is.
I actually get exactly what you are saying, and felt pretty much the same about decade ago. But now after having long enough experience with Linux, I'm feeling majority of those feelings were because I was so much more familiar with other systems. And also because I had problems with certain design choices that I didn't fully understand at the time.
It took me a long time to feel more familiar with Linux than with Windows, but I was determined to migrate for many reasons. But once I felt more comfortable with Linux, Windows started quickly feeling absolutely horrible.
I used Amiga from the late 80s till mid 97 when I sold my 68060 based machine away. I absolutely loved those machines. But comparing those to Linux is impossible. AmigaOs 3.1 was just amazing.
I legit remember buying a version of Debian in the box (with a bumper sticker included!) at my local Best Buy sometime around 1999, as well as seeing products like SuSE Linux available for purchase in the box. Crazy times!
The main, prevailing difference is simple. Windows is Microsoft's OS whereas Linux is the user's OS.
As a Linux user that started on Redhat in the 90s, I can officially say this is hilarious. I love the video, keep up the good work.
Remembering a pain in the ass that was installing a Slackware 2.0 back in the day and installing any commercial Linux distro today, it's with an enormous pleasure that I'm announcing my 24nd year as Linux user. Since October 1996!
Debian since 1999 here!
What was linux like back then?
Rite now its pretty user friendly but what was it like first hopping on the linux train in the mid 90s?
Never though I’d see Linux related content on Nostalgia Nerd
@thatonespathi Retro Linux stuff isn't seem to be interesting, it's basically just the same text screens and sometimes an barebones X setup. Also, a lot of those distributions are difficult to install even on period-appropriate hardware.
@@negirno Totally agree. Reviewing retro GNU/Linux operating systems can only be interesting if you review it differently than retro Windows operating systems in my opinion.
I fundamentally disagree with it being boring. You have the DE wars (which GNOME lost, since it was Gnome vs KDE at the time), you had things like Mandrake that took over the whole world and then died, and you had the genuine struggle with getting Windows-based ANYTHING to work, which basically made it a server OS at the time. Linux has an interesting history.
Watching this on my Fedora 33 linux machine, the spooky part is at around @14:30
man that was a close call
(5:02) This seems reminiscent of the Desktop Wars, in which IBM compatible computers won against other systems due to IBM creating an easily replicable system. IBM could be seen as having lost the battle themselves against the compatibles, but won the war with IBM compatibles becoming the de facto standard.
Yeah but everyone using your easy to replicate without paying you system doesn’t put money in the bank for ibm
I remember the first time I heard of Linux. I was in a computer store and asking about antivirus software to a technician, when he quietly told me about it as if it was a secret or illegal bit of paraphernalia. I booted the disk and immediately fell in love with it.
"Hey kid, you wanna buy some Linux?"
I remember seeing the Computer Chronicle episode on my local PBS station in 98 where they interviewed Linus Torvalds, and that's when I started to get interested in Linux, but I had known about it before that, and even had a copy of RedHat 386 on CD, but could not get it to install on my hardware, then one of the techs at CompUSA said try CorelLinux, as I was already a big fan of Corel WordPerfect on Windows along with their other office software, sop and I did buy a copy(over $100 USD at the time), I liked it, but due to lack of software, and games It was a secondary hobby OS for me till a few years ago after trying it on/off throughout the 00's, and early 10's. Now I'm a full time Manjaro w/Mate DE user, and can't be happier.
Dear parents: Talk to your children about Linux before some else does.
I used DR dos back in the day and their disk compression was SUPERIOR to all others back then and worked flawlessly for me and I ran a bbs off of it using MAXIMUS lol I MISS THOSE DAYS - that’s when computers were fun.
I ran Linux way back in the day before the GUI was available. Loved it
I have Linux on my second main PC. I've learned a bunch and am comfortable on it enough to put only a Distro of Linux on my next main main PC. And with Steam making it even easyer to play "Windows only" games it will I hope have more of a user base
> (Linux) remains an even more painfull thorn in their sight today
Since Nadella, Microsoft came full circle, and is now:
* embracing linux and open source
* at times be the biggest contributor to Linux (for a given period)
* added an option to windows to install a linux environment in windows (called WSL),
* their cloud service Azure runs on linux
* instead of fighting started supporting making their dotnet environment compatible with other platforms
* does many of its new developer-focussed developments as open source (like visual studio code)
* started rewriting their dotnet platform as open source (dotnet core)
* adds direct support to their dev. tools to deploy to Linux
* lifts some of their patents (like on exFAT) so that things can be added to linux
etc.
So your ending phrase couldn't be more wrong. Other than that, nice video
Don't fall for that shit. If history has taught us anything it's that Microsoft can't be trusted.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
@@noahwilliams8996 point to any one of the ones I mentioned and explain how embrace, extend, extinguish applies.
Note that I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing this for the good will of the world. They've simply realised that they can't fight it, and that they're doing more business if they embrace it.
@@lePoMo "Embracing Linux and open source"
Yeah, that's what they're trying to make it SEEM like they're doing.
Remember: corporations only care about maximizing profits.
@@noahwilliams8996 exactly. and they realized that they maximize profit by benefiting of linux and open source in general.
also, you can embrace open source, you can extend open source, but you cannot extinguish it.
@@lePoMo Yes you can. It's called vendor lock-in. They'll come up with their own proprietary version with features that Linux doesn't have. That's their entire business strategy.
When you have to tear down the competition it means you’ve run out of good ideas.
The big motto at the time of these documents in the community was "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." This was actually on the walls of the RedHat corporate offices back in the early 2000's IIRC.
The state of Linux nowadays is nothing short of amazing. In recent years I've been same to run games like Overwatch natively under Linux with full 3D rendering using development versions of WINE and dxvk.
It's an extremely pleasant feeling to watch this on Manjaro Linux
Corel Linux was my very first experience with Linux. I downloaded version 1.0 on dial up only to have to download 1.2 a week later when they released it with usb support. I still rock it on some retro machines.
For a minute I've thought you'll say the download took a week :D
@Abstractism It is 463mb I dont remember exactly but I do recall using a download manager. The family had a separate fax line we used for dial up so we could still make phone calls. We also had unlimited dial up. It would have been a 20-38 hour download.
This feels especially relevant now with how far linux gaming has been coming along recently. Wouldn't be completely surprised if they tried something like this again, but I doubt it would happen.
Something to look into would be what happened about a decade earlier (90's) between SCO, Microsoft, and Novell - linux like slackware wasn't really a concern then most of the legal actions of those days were around Unix SysV. Another interesting thing to feature would be how hotmail and large portions of MSN was running on Solaris and Microsoft knew they had to have something that could scale - at that time Windows just didn't cut it.
Ok now name one big company that does not consider outside threats roflol. Now the steps they take are certainly up for review but there should be no surprise they would worry and develop strategies to maintain market dominance. That is what companies do until we break them up.
I can tell you right now why this is completely misinterpreted. They intended to get people to try to adopt linux, only to find that the OSS software at the time was just barely usable, and was missing lots of features, drivers, and support. They wanted a backlash that would eviscerate OSS for a generation. Unfortunately for them, people didn't really try to switch toe linux at the time. Now, that could be a problem.
In a way, they sadly succeed at that.
It's still lacking hardware support for many older games and some new ones. Fuck all three OS's
Linux in early 2000s: are considered a threat by the company that makes the most used OS in the world.
Linux in late 2010s: Breaking news: Local penguin refuses to die.
And fights back(somehow) with arroheads, swirls, hats, circles and some dragobs.
@@devikakrishna4464 oh and don't forget arches
Things are actually very different as most of Microsoft's revenue now comes from Cloud services such as Azure (which they will happily support many OS applications and provide templates for Linux distros and applications). Many OS applications are fully supported and utilised by Microsoft, it's a very different world.
Is it though? Sounds like the perfect way to get people locked in.
@@noahwilliams8996 locked in to what? Azure maybe, but the main competitors there are Google and Amazon, "open source software" is just another tool for these services it doesn't factor as a competitor.
@@TheRetroArchive locked into Microsoft.
@@noahwilliams8996 that's like saying you are locked into any goods or services that you use, literally anything.
@@TheRetroArchive No, vendor lock-in is a thing that applies to software and parts. You should know what vendor lock-in isd
Some important points: Microsoft last year bought GitHub! Also even 10 years ago a typical application would be composed of 20/80 open source to non-open source libraries. Today that is more like 80/20. Microsoft are now focusing on what they do well: (1) desktop operating system, (2) Active Directory and attachments in enterprise, (3) cloud computing (which embraces open source, as MS seem to now be doing). Maybe one day they will ditch Windows Server as they don't really need it anymore.
I still don't understand how I can live and hate a company so much at the same time, maybe it's just because they do so many different things that I can't hate all of it....
Yeah I refuse to use any of their software, protocols/formats, or online services. ...but I own an xBox. (Justified by it being a fully self contained single purpose appliance that doesn't interact with any other device I own.)
maybe you're just a retarded fence sitter....
Ooh I remember these documents very well. It was exhilarating and so liberating to finally see Microsoft reacting toxic and overly aggressive. This won the hearts of so many people over to OSS. OSS was the underdog, no longer. Stength in numbers helps, when you already know you're doing well, and the only things that's missing is the recognition of the general public. I bet everybody today know what Linux is, roughly. Many might not use it, because they're gamers or need this or that windows software, or they don't enjoy the Linux desktop experience. But Linux has come a long way. It's everywhere now.
I think the biggest reason most people use windows is just because it’s preinstalled on most computers and don’t see the point on trying to install a completely different os and lack the knowledge on how to install a new os.
Long live software freedom. "Every generation must fight the same battles again and again. There's no final victory and there's no final defeat" - Tony Benn
I think Lucas Thompson is right. I personally use Ubuntu everywhere, but I wanted to use it and also I failed to install it 2 times (for 5 tries).
@Wazaag Break-head another thing wrong with Linux. The pure elitism. I love my Ubuntu unity install, but not everyone can do this kind of thing.
oh you guys did use a lot of FUD circa 10 years later too. I mean dare say badvista was anything but FUD
Funny thing is, MS is doing more these days to drive people to Linux than the merits of Linux itself. Every update breaks more than it fixes, and Windows 10 has become a giant, hot buggy mess. Seems like stability is at the bottom of Microsoft's priority list, when it should be at the top.
Completely agree. Although the improvements in numerous Linux distros are notable, it's mostly poor decision making by Microsoft that's had me using Mint for the past 3 years and openSUSE for a year.
Has become? Windows has always been that
Windows, between 2000 and 7, was remarkably stable. Bad drivers and malware notwithstanding, of course.
During this same period, my favorite Linux WM, KDE, crapped out what may have been some of the least usable releases in software meant to see the light of day. The relationship between the Linux kernel, X Windows, and the video drivers in either were also in flux. I kept using it as a desktop OS on a development box, but it wouldn’t be rare for stuff like copy and paste to stop working until I re-launched X, or for the lock screen to be unable to unlock.
Linux also has a downright allergic reaction to out-of-memory conditions that Windows handles with esteemed grace, in comparison.
So any argument that Linux = Stable and Windows = Buggy Mesa, at least during that decade, are perhaps a little shy of reality.
(Although, in the server or appliance space, where the software stack is minimal and mostly of battle-hardened code, that is a completely different argument. But one should be comparing it to Windows Server at that point, which also runs like a marathon.)
Anyway, Windows 8 is what convinced me to buy a MacBook Pro for my daily driver. And yeah, Windows 10 is a dumpster fire.
All operating systems break things when updating. That's why there are enterprise builds that have options to delay updates on a Long Term basis. Windows 10 has a slow update ring for users on WSUS and Windows 10 Enterprise and Education. Most Linux builds have LTS versions for this reason too.
I have never had a bsod in Linux.. like "sorry.. we fucked up , please reboot"
Man I still remember the battle over Microsoft versus the creators of SAMBA (a compatible open source implementation of Windows workgroups, as well as being able to operate as things like Domain controllers later on).
I'm so glad they've changed their stance. Also, it's so great that Linux is where it is now, and getting stronger.
They didn't. They're just doing the same thing they've always done. Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
@@noahwilliams8996 But the problem is they can't do the last step > "extinguish". And will never will.
The discussion of DOC files around the 5 minute mark is ironic, because many people were first introduced to Open Office as a solution to reading a DOC file that would not open or would even crash MS Word.
Word originally loaded raw memory structures from the file that matched how the compiled code accessed data, which made it brittle: any error would be like an error in memory, sending points off to wrong locations or overwriting the boundaries of allocated areas.
OO.O OTOH worked totally differently and implemented a parser to read and translate the format, including robust error checking that was fault-tolerant. Any error might result is typos or small losses, not a complete inability to load or worse yet a program crash.
oh damn, I used to know someone that worked at SCO. I never knew why the company shut down. When it did though, it shut down FAST. There were a ton of leftover desktops and laptops that had their HDD's wiped.
I had no idea that Microsoft was involved with them to that degree
I somehow managed to work on projects at different companies using both SCO Xenix (a microsoft product originally, to create a PC unix) and then later SCO's Unix variant. Whenever things went wrong with it, as they inevitably did, we'd say "SCO!" in emulation of Homer Simpson's "D'oh!" catchphrase. Everything worked so much better once we were finally allowed to port it to Linux instead.
I started using Linux a bit before win95 came out, and I've watched its growth just continue ever since. Apart from for the odd game I've not done much with windows since the 90's. All my day to day work has been on the server side of ISP's which is a market MS has never really had much of a presence in. The commercial unix vendors have all gone by the way side (Sun, Sgi, Dec, Hp, Novell, Sco) and Linux is the only game in town. Even Microsoft's Azure is moving over to Linux now, which is a day I never thought I would see but Azure and Office 365 is how they make most their money these days, so Windows is just not that important a revenue stream as it once was.
It seems a shame that you missed the ending of the story. With Microsofts change on focus from a software company to a digital and cloud services company it did a complete U-Turn on Linux and open source.
You can now get free Linux VMs on Azure.
Microsoft owns and runs GitHub for free (major source code repository for a lot of open source projects).
Microsoft has its own open source initiatives
Microsoft is the 5th largest contributor to the Linux code base
Microsoft now provides a wine like interface to run Linux software under Windows
Also remember Xenix, Microsoft s abandoned attempt at a pre Linux UNIX clone for the x86 architecture and inspiration for Linus Toravolds
azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/free/virtual-machines/search/
news.microsoft.com/announcement/microsoft-acquires-github/
opensource.microsoft.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_open_source
docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install-win10
www.zdnet.com/article/top-five-linux-contributor-microsoft/
fossbytes.com/xenix-history-microsoft-unix-operating-system/
This!! Thank you, I was going to write something about this myself.
However M$ may be preparing to EEE Linux as they already integrated D3D into WSL, and WSL only.
Microsoft is looking to undermine linux by making Windows a "better version of Linux" by adding stuff to WSL exclusively. Then they can snuff it out and run a proprietary software future.
Talking with our Microsoft account managers, it appears that Microsoft is no longer focussing on the operating system or proprietary software. Microsoft see their future being a cloud service platform.
"Proprietary software" is less about which OS or application you use and more about using a Microsoft data lake, Azure functions and which AI engine.
D3D in WLS is more about allowing you to develop your AI application with access to your GPU locally before deploying it to Azure to scale up to millions of GPU cores.
I don't think Microsoft cares about winning the desktop or server war anymore, it's not where the future is headed.
I’m glad Microsoft’s turned over a new leaf in that regard. Took a while but I guess they did decide on treat after all
i've been working as a server admin/webmaster ever since before i even finished college, for nearly about 10 years now and never ever have i used windows server for production... i mean, yeah sure, window's hyper-v is really good, but the cost is ridiculous and i often advise the companies i work for against using windows server
I remember when this came out. It was very common topic on the Linux forums of the day.
thank you for smooth, fluent explanation and adding subtitles.
And today we have WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). A godsend for us developers stuck with Windows, but needing an actual workable developing environment for professionals after the bad turn Windows has been taking over the last decade.
Had a weak laptop, M$ abandoned the system, and Win10 was too heavy, so I migrated to Linux. Then did the same with main PC, I don't regret it.
Painful memories. I was a level three UNIX/Linux support engineer at IBM between 2000 and 2007 (via IBM's acquisition of Sequent Computer Systems). I was deposed by lawyers regarding the SCO vs IBM lawsuit since I had access to Linux source code on IBM's intranet and did such things as Linux kernel crash dump analysis. I hope to never repeat that experience. The lawsuit, from my perspective, was a crock of shit but IANAL and don't speak for IBM (since I left their employ in 2007).
Funny to see how it contrast with the Microsft of now, they are actually supporting open source and using it themselves.
They always used it, if you look at the source code leak of XP
Something interesting about Unix, but back in the 80s when Unix was only available in proprietary versions many companies like Sun HP, Microsoft, etc. all released their own versions of Linux that where incompatible to varying degrees with each other as mentioned in the video. What made them all flavors of Unix (or Unix distros if you will) was that they all shared underlying code from AT&T, who were the inventors of Unix. AT&T invented Unix in 1970 but was unable to commercialize it due to an antitrust consent decree from the 1950’s that prevented them from getting into any other business beyond telephone service (they where a government sanctioned telephone monopoly at the time). This meant that early versions of Unix were only able to be given out to educational institution to play around with sort of under the table. Later though they licensed the source code for a flat fee (a lower fee for education institutions/universities and a higher one for commercial one), a practice that was allowed under the decent decree. Thus companies like HP and Sun could license the source code then compile their own custom versions of Unix with their proprietary add-on features and software. There was no Unix standardization at the time. Early in the 1980 this would change when AT&T, then under a second anti-trust case with U.S. government agreed to split up AT&T, selling off it’s local telephone companies (Baby Bells) and some other parts of the company and allow competition for long distance service for the first time, in exchange for being able to enter the computer business. This started what became known as the Unix Wars.
Back in the mid 70’s, UC Berkeley (A prominent University in Berkeley, CA, USA) started a computer department Know as Berkeley Systems that licensed the Unix code from AT&T and began work on an add-on package for Unix called The Berkeley Systems Distribution. This add-on package later became a Unix distro in it’s own right still under the name Berkeley Systems Distribution. BSD Unix was sold to other Universities who had to have a seperate license from AT&T for the Unix source code to use it legally. After AT&T settled it antitrust case and was allowed to finally market Unix as commercial package itself, AT&T Developed a commercial version known as System V that AT&T sold directly through a Unix subsidiary they created. They promoted this as official Unix version. Because of previouse licensing of the Unix source code to Berkeley System and others, other flavors of Unix continued to exists including BSD Unix and many commercial/enterprise version based on BSD. This led to the Unix wars were AT&T tried to push System V as the only real Unux while others promoted BSD and other BSD derived Unix’s at the better choice. Ultimately this hurt Unix and it was realized that they needed to set some standards for Unix to reduce the fractured nature of the Unix ecosystem. This lead to such projects at the POSIX standards that set standards for what qualifies as true Unix system. Thus If you wanted to use the trademark UNIX you needed to meet certain standards going forth. Linux also has a standardization certification program though few distros have applied for certification largely due incompatibles being less of issue in Linux largely due to the open-source nature of Linux making it harder to create proprietary incompatible features in Linux and easier for users and developers to support de facto standards in Linux. The only real issue is making Linux software available via the various different package managers which also involves dealing with dependencies.
Unfortunately for AT&T they never quit figured out how to properly market System V UNIX on their own back in the 80’s so it would dominate the Unix install base, much like how IBM lost the IBM-PC market to clones. AT&T after a failed attempt to sell computer hardware including PC’s in the late 80’s and early 90’s, later get out of the computer business including selling off their Unix arm, Unix Systems Lab (USL) to Novel in the early 90’s (by this time both Free Unix-like OS including FreeBSD and Unix where around making proprietary Unixes like System V increasingly obsulete. Meanwhile, a while AT&T was still trying to sell cooperations on System V as the best Unix to adopt, number of BSD Unix users lamented that fact that to use BSD Unix also meant having to pay high licensing fees for the source code for Unix to AT&T and wanted Berkeley Systems to seperate the parts of the OS that they wrote from the code that came from AT&T. At first this resulted in a incomplete OS were you had to figure out an replacement for the missing Unix Kernel. Later, someone wrote a replacement kernel among other replacement parts for proprietary AT&T Unix code which is how we eventually got FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and other Unix-like OS based on the BSD code.
Linux on the other hand was not based on Unix code but rather based on a proprietary Unix-like OS written from scratch in the late 80’s for University use that Linus Torvolds wanted to use for himself but couldn’t due to restrictive licensing issues back then so he decided to create a clone of the kernel used in that OS and then combine that with open-source clones of popular Unix CLI tools and apps from the Free Software Foundation known as the GNU tools/apps. That’s how Linux came to be. Currently, while the Linux community is going strong, the BSD-based Unix community (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc) has an uncertain future (outside fo the BSD/FreeBSD based macOS) with questions as to why we need to maintain the BSD based Unix like OS when the Linux OS is very mature and has distros that are arguably just as good.
When Microsoft first built Windows NT / OS /2 they needed to have Posix compatibility to meet GSA requirements to sell to the federal government. To get it done quickly the windows TCP/IP stack was built by Porting the BSD stack over to Windows NT and OS/2. On early versions of NT the network utilities for command line respond to the BSD required arguments and display the BSD license. The new stack used from windows 2000 and later no longer display the BSD license due to Microsoft completely re writing the stack windows ME also uses the windows 2000 stack.
@@JeffreyPiatt BSD Unix was I believe the first Unix to support TCP/IP which was a major impetus for splitting of the networking portion of BSD Unix from the kernel/base OS portion belong to AT&T. By creating a Kernel compatible that could run a Linux software but was free of AT&T IP they where able to create open source Unix flavors though AT&T/USL tried to sue over the first open source Unix clones for copyright infringement but lost due the developers effectively cleaning out the AT&T code from what would become FreeBSD and OpenBSD and their derivatives. It was Berkeley Systems giving away as free & open source software under the BSD license that allowed many future OS’s including NeXTSTEP, MacOS, Windows NT 3.1, etc. to a.l have a fairly well developed TCP/IP stack. Unfortunately, some companies decide to developed their own in-house version of TCP/IP which is always risky due to the possibility of introducing bugs/flaws and thus security holes on untested code. This is why the original Edge Browser in Win10 went nowhere while I think the knew edge based on Chromium (aka Chredge) will get better traction as it free Microsoft from having to developed their own rendering engine and fix flaws in it while leaving them to work on their own ideas for a better GUI interface and feature set vs Chrome and Firefox. We have to see if MS innovates enough to be a major player again in the browser space. So far I’m sticking with Firefox and Chrome when using a Win10 PC. Microsoft should have just stuck with BSD’s TCP/IP in Win 2000 as fail to see how doing their own version benefited them or Windows users. It’s not like the BSD TCP/IP stack never advanced to keep up with advances in the internet and networking.
It might be a stretch to say Linux was based on Minix. Torvalds wanted a UNIX and Minix was the closest offering at the time (and it evidently sucked). Maybe the file system came from it, but that is probably about it
@@kungfujesus06 My understanding was he wanted a Unix-like OS and Minix was/is a POSIX compliment Unix-like OS and as a result Linux in its various distros became a Unix-like OS for this reason though none of the early Linux Distros were officially POSIX compliment (are any as 2020? I don't know). So while Linux Distros were not clones of Minix exactly in the strict sense they were very close in operation in many aspects at least as far as they went to being Unix clones. Later Distros better duplicated features of Unix/Free bad/Minix/etc to be more Unix-like. What Torvolds first developed was just a Kernel and FSF who parted the completed portions of their stalked GNU Unix-like OS to worked with the Linux kernel. It was the GNU utilities and apps that made for a usable OS. A lot of what formed early Linux Distros came from the so far failed attempt at a open source free Unix clone known GNU from the FSF that wast to include the HURD kernel which has never reached a stable state despite continued work on it to this day (it's been three decades though they haven't given up yet I've HURD😆). Fortunately, the FSF realized there plan was not going as planned (GNU HURD's Multiserver microkernel design has proven harder to implement then thought) and thus agreed to make what portions they had completed of GNU work with the Linux kernel so they'd have a FOS OS sooner rather then maybe never. I don't know if HURD will ever come to be in a ready for deployment state and if so will it really so much better then the Linux Kernel in its design to worth using over Linux.
@@Charlesb88 Right but having a POSIX compliant interface is hardly "based on". Linus used the crappy Minix file system early on in Linux before ext became production ready. No code of any kind was taken from Minix.
I still use Windows because I used it for 6 years. I know how to use Ubuntu and a bit of Linux stuff like the sudo command. But I still use Windows 10 due to me not wanting to modify my system.
Same
I still have to use Windows at work but at home I have two setups, one is MacOS and the other is Linux Mint. The two systems run 24/7 and in the last two years, the MacOS has crashed twice and the Linux has never crashed.
At one stage, when I was using Windows, I had regular crashes. W10 caused up to 12 crashes in a single day. I could not continue with that level of failure. I am more productive now because I am not tinkering with the OS to keep it stable.
If your win 10 has 12 crashes in a single day you are having serious "user issues". You are definitely doing something wrong.
I remember those days when I used to test our software on different platforms we thought free is nice
Windows 10 officially supports a Linux virtual environment. I use BASH commands in things like NPM to install and manage web development tasks too in my WIndows environment.
Embrace extend extinguish
I do web development on Linux for Linux servers =P
@@mrcrackerist I still use Dreamweaver for some things!
@@yorkshireplumbing vim or vs code here :)
Love these kind of videos, I didn't even know about Microsoft's shady 90s banaynayz until you started covering them.
They are still at it in full force, they only went quiet for a short time after the anti-trust situation with the government. There is a reason MS has only the smallest presence in the server market,(like under 10%) most professional system admins can smell the long term danger of doing business with MS, home users are generally not computer literate enough to understand the issues. Most of that small MS server presence is concentrated in the smaller IT departments where the company doesn't have the resources to hire dedicated certified system administrators and MS can sell the business manager on bunch of marketing hokum which then pulls them slowly into the walled garden trap. (Which is how I estimate most mid size IT departments inherited an MS situation, started small and now the cost of escape is high.)
Apple also has a walled garden but they don't hide it, in fact they seem to brag about it, Apple devices physically equipped with open standard protocols like bluetooth are programmed to flatly refuse connection with non-apple devices.
So Microsoft is scared of me for jumping to arch linux.
LOL
Worth mentioning is that SCO was founded in 1979, and has been called the "first Unix company". It was actually a highly-respected company. The ascendancy of Linux effectively obsoleted commercial versions of Unix, which of course meant SCO wasn't viable as a business. What was once a highly-regarded business died an ignoble death as a patent troll.
I don't have any stats to back it up, but I imagine Linux is the world's most-used OS, probably by at least an order of magnitude more than Windows. It's powering phones, network routers, and undoubtedly a bunch of other stuff of which we are unaware.
Microsoft still has a stranglehold on the desktop, as evidenced by how awful Windows is. No product could be that bad if there was real competition.
Microtransactionsoft fears a semiconductor not made or associated with their monopoly.
It's a 64 company based on a 32 bit system funded at 16 bit legacy with 8 bit origin and 4 bit understood but what about the 2 bit understanding?
And now Windows will soon become just another linux distro.
Yes Microsoft Ubuntu Linux 16.04 does exist.
@@mrkitty777 now comes with the Windows Store Package Manager.
@@Bagginsess sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade, it's not windows being advanced, it's windows having a trillion dollars company behind it. I wish 🥺 Microsoft becomes good guy, and not like Chucky the good guy puppet, again.
No windows core os is a thing so I have to x to doubt
@@mrkitty777 Bill Gates is a glowing demonic entity so that is highly unlikely.
16:51 Wich leads us to the Longhorn fiasco and the fact that MS haven't truly made a sucessor of NT6.0.
I used MS Windows till Windows 10, Then it became "free", so I decided not to pay with my privacy and moved to Linux Mint. I never looked back...
System does it have old core2duo like mine?
hey dude you know your privacy has already been stolen a million times?
Ironically Microsoft is more honest with what data the system services need to operate to be useful. Google and Amazon use a lot of legal speak to hide what there doing.
thumbs up for Mint! I use that on my media machine and it works great!
@@micefort So a person should just give up their privacy forever? Gtfo with that crap.
Andrew S. Tannenbaum, creator of MINIX, was interviewed in 2004 about whether Linus Torvalds wrote or could have written Linux himself, but with the pretense that it was about the history of UNIX. Very interesting: www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
Why is this important? I don't get the relevance.
You did not mention the groklaw website which gathered all information about the SCO vs the world from 2003 onward, and when I say "all" I mean "all". Long live PJ!
As our technology improves, I think open source is the future as single corporations only develop products for profit. Never underestimate the power of open source.
I use Linux but also Windows, and as well iOS and Android.
The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind.
And still there are almost no computers without preinstalled Windows available for purchase.
The Tides are changing there, especially this year with multiple vendors putting forward "Linux Certified" Laptops and Desktops where previously there was none.
System76 is selling their computers with Linux (PopOS) installed, and they are said to be pretty good (based on LTT's review of one of their products, can't really remember which one it was).
Chromebooks make up a fairly large percentage of the laptop market, and despite their beat efforts Microsoft is still behind Android and Apple in the tablet market.
There are plenty available, but you kinda have to be looking for them. I yet have to see a PC with Ubuntu, Mint, or Manjaro in Best Buy or in best selling categories in online shops.
@@jamesdawson5509 chrome os is a disgrace to linux
As I recall, the SCO lawsuit eventually pared sown the claims of infringement to a few lines of kernel source for handling load balancing between multiple processor cores. SCO had previously bought the rights to Xenix - Microsoft's implementation of Unix - It was eventually determined that load balancing code was added by IBM from another source, which was developed at a publicly funded university and was in the public domain.
Meanwhile, as SCO started advertising binary licenses for linucs at $699 per processor in server installtions ($1399 after SCO "won" the lawsui). M\eabwile Microsott started promoting their latest server version of windows as protection from SCo LAWSUITS.
I jumped over to Linux just before Halloween so this video is.....spooky.
I tried to put Linux on my laptop. Patented Intel Linux Blocker technology (RST) prevented me from using my NVME M.2 drive as the boot drive. Thanks Intel!
send them a message and attach pictures of amd stuff to piss them off
The only exception where FOSS-software can not be competitive is AAA-gaming (the production of games). Other than that it can be 100% competitive and indeed even get better on the long term because you can keep building and keep using a relatively old code-base. To produce such games you need a large budget on short term, that is not possible for FOSS. But in theory they could make the best game-engine or produce nice indy-games or platform-games eventually.
Yup.. I only use Windows for gaming.. I love Linux mint
years later Microsoft Azure Linux happens haha And the Windows Subsystem for Linux
Happy holidays nerd
I seem to recall one rather hotly fueled discussion somewhere on the internet that some version of Windows actually incorporated parts of LINUX and or UNIX in it's internal components. Not sure where it is, maybe someone remembers what the specifics were. It seemed to have a lot of discussion going around it.
I remember these. This is why I still don't trust Microsoft even today.
Nobody r e a l l y trusts them. We just like our videogames
Between this and what they did to DR DOS, yeah. I remember reading all this as it happened on slashdot back in the day.
@@ratthew42 Windows is great for video games. Everything else can be done on either a Linux machine or Mac without any issues.
@@ratthew42 i will say gaming on linux is not that bad now days thanks to steam play/proton and wine but drm and anti chat is making it hard for linux gaming to be as good as windows oh and the halo master chief collection single-player works on linux
@@ratthew42 Been a Linux gamer for years now. Still have a Windows partition for some games (specifically those with shitty anti-cheats), but everything else runs nicely for me.
Linux has variety, and doesn't focus itself on proprietary software or hardware.
Linux has 9 billion versions and what works on one version may not work on another version leaving the possibility of having to use numerous versions of linux to use linux programs. Add in the extremely unfriendly setup and configuration and you have pretty much no one using it.
And it offers a common architecture and API across all those varieties. Example: being able to run exactly the same software on a Raspberry π as on your AMD Ryzen box. Or on an IBM POWER9-based supercomputer.
@@MAGAMAN Assuming you are being serious, you are mostly wrong. Linux has gone through many versions, but "Linux" only refers to the kernel, which is almost always backwards compatible for stuff, with drivers being more picky. If a program isn't compatible with a modern kernel, you are either using something like nvidia drivers, or have an extremely old program that probably has an updated version, or a newer replacement.
Distributions are more like separately maintained OSes, but there is good compatibility between them. Sure, you might have a bit of trouble installing, for example, a .rpm file on a Debian based system, but you can still do it. There are some differences and package conflicts (eg. progam x needs version 1 or lower of program z, but program y needs version 1.1 of z or higher) that can happen, but I haven't experienced something like that in quite a while.
You can also pick the amount of interaction with the command line with your distro choice. Some, you don't need to interact with the command line at all, and on the other side, some have installers that don't have a gui, and/or don't come with one by default.
TLDR you probably don't know how this works or are joking.
@@MAGAMAN Can't tell if sarcasm or not
@@uiopuiop3472 it's troll, look at his other comments, and you'll have a 100% proof
VLC Media Player is a clear example that OSS can be better that Microsoft alternatives. Groove, a simple mp3 player, crashes very frequently, what should never happen considering I use modern hardware
I don’t know anyone who he used Linux. In fact the only time I’ve ever seen it in person is when I visited Crewe Alexandra FC for an ICT A-Level project in 2001!
I had a friend that almost managed to get Linux running but we had to do it via video call and the internet was bad so ye
I became very annoyed with Micro$oft after the browser wars in the late nineties. When they destroyed Netscape and tried very, very hard to break lots of web standards and APIs. When Netscape was killed off, they completely neglected any browser development, until Google started funding Firefox and Chrome.
Massive linux convert here. I'll never go back. NEVER!
I've always run windows because I game but I have toyed with Linux. I recommend Linux for old computers all the time, but if the person I'm talking to is a gamer, I'd tell em to get windows.
I recommend linux for anyone.
Because the more gamers on linux the more likely the devs will make games over on linux.
12:47:
Or too put it another way:
"we can't beat the competition on price quality or ease of use, so that leaves fraud...or as we prefer to call it: "marketing"".
~Pointy Haired Boss (Dilbert).
Microsoft IS* terrified of Linux.
Fixed the title, Microsoft is a single company.
Linux is great cause it’s free. My problem with it is that it’s not as refined. I
There’s just small things that windows does so much better. There’s other things too, but Linux is still a great thing to learn
@randy s
_"whats not refined."_
A LOT is NOT refined on Linux, it's sharp around the edges. DO NOT DENY IT!
_"try linux mint it super refined."_
Yeah bloated enough so you rarely have to find a dependency or a program.
that's not what i call refined.
I have used basically every Desktop environment and all of them leak something.
However gnome and kde seem to be the most refined of the bunch, since KDE is hurting my OCD, i went with gnome i feel super slow in gnome so i use tweaks to make it feel like windows.
In my opinion, linux can do everything better as long as people like you switch to it meaning developers can recognize that.
nowadays, its basically graphics api's that keep linux from gaining a big chunk of market share
Windows 2000 was the nail in the coffin that pushed me to Linux and I've never looked back. Still keep an older 9 pin serial port equipped laptop with xp on it tho , lots of old Inverters ect. Still being used commercially in industry
Another amazing video
Good. Microsoft needs to be kept on it's toes and fight for it's own survival. Linux is free, diverse, and easy to use.
Thanks to Azure, which is more than 50% Linux VMs, MS are making a hefty wad out of Linux these days and they have ported most of their most important apps to Linux as of 2020, most recently Direct 3D (for WSL), Teams and their Edge browser. Linux is most definitely not a thorn in their side nor something they are even remotely averse to post Ballmer.
Next up: MS buys Canonical.
I like Linux a lot but I think Microsoft needs not to be afraid of it too much. I had a development job recently that involved Linux kernel and the shit I saw in there just would not fly in a software owned and maintained by a commercial entity. I worked with a kernel feature and it was pure crap. It had a version number - which the maintainer did not change for several versions. We found bugs in it, fixed them and reported them to the maintainer. He responded that we should read the manual. So our team replied, explaining what the bugs were and how they were causing crashes and we never heard from him again.
I do like the Linux kernel for being OSS and that gives us a chance to fix the crap ourselves. But that you need to fix the crap at all, that's where it kinda loses me.
2021 year of the Linux Desktop!
With Wayland getting widespread adoption in the Linux community, you may be right. A year ago, the only good Wayland experience you could have was with GNOME, as they were the only ones to fully support it. However, I'm using KDE with Wayland right now in Fedora 33, and it seems to have come a long way since last year. X.Org has been declared obsolete and the last release was in 2016. Not a day too soon.
*@ammarkov*
It's always the year of the linux desktop.
@@adamn.4111 The way nvidia "supports" wayland via EGLStreams requires developers jumping through hoops just to allow people with nvidia cards to use wayland, as everyone else has already agreed on using GBM for wayland. As long as nvidia has a large market share and is actively trying to not support the thing that every other hardware and software manufacturer has agreed on, wayland will not be widespread.
@@Prism019
I don't have an Nvidia GPU anymore so can't really tell how bad the Nvidia + Wayland situation is. But I've read that people are having issues with that. Both AMD and Intel have made their graphics drivers open source. Nvidia apparently doesn't want to do that, and as you say they're actively stifling the Linux desktop. It's starting to look like they're doing it on purpose, but I don't know why. Even Linus said "Fuck you, Nvidia!". He was right.
How does WSL fit in your story? You seem to ignore the change in Microsoft’s stance (or strategy, maybe?) towards Linux.
In one word: Azure. A large part of Azure runs on Linux. As a Azure developer I prefer Linux based Azure webapps over Windows. Also Docker containers are very much smaller compared to Windows based containers. The Microsoft devs are frantically trying to make those smaller but they are still stuck at several GB, where a Linux system can be as small as MegaBytes. So as the server market is largely dominated by Linux so is the Azure platform. Microsoft can't possibly ignore that as they want Azure to be as profitable as possible. They don't focus too much anymore on software, the new focus is SAAS and PAAS. Azure, office365, etc.
These documents are from the Gates/Steve Balmer era. Steve Balmer once called Linux a cancer. Now Microsoft can't ignore Linux any longer.
I don't know what the real stance of Microsoft on Linux is but if I would make a guess its probably something along the lines of what makes the most profit. And for now Azure is a big part of their profit.
@@tfksworldoflinux I'm baffled. You have a point, but how is this a reaction or reply to my comment?
@@rudodejong to develop linux apps for azure in windows, probably?
@@patemathic What are you talking about? I was questioning the story of the maker of the video. I was not asking what WSL is meant for. Jeez.
If Microsoft chose to they could enable wsl on every machine by default and developers would need only port to linux and their software would run everywhere. They don’t. They squirrel wsl away in a hidden setting that spits scary warning messages. It only exists so the technical minded people who are curious about/or have tried a little linux do not switch away from Windows
17:01 Terrifying ending!
I'll be having nightmares for years!
I have given up Linux... I tried countless distros on my Xeon 2288G Workstation and most would not boot at all and 1 versions did sort of run but vas impossible to use because of 30 seconds delay on mouse and keyboard input. Only Unix alike system that I got working was BSD and Mac OS running as hackintosh but both of them had same problem with only running 1280*720p resolution on my 4k TV and nothing else would work.